f 


Social  Progress 

and  the 

Darwinian  Theory 

A  Study  of  Force  as  a  Factor  in 
Human  Relations 

By 
George   Nasmyth,  Ph.D. 

With  an  Introduction  by 

Norman   Angell 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 
New  York  and  London 

tTbe    finfcfterbocFier    press 
1916 


'PPLACJNG 


Copyright,  19  i6 

BY 

GEORGE    NASMYTH 


Ubc  ftntcfierbocftcr  ©ress,  "ftew  ©orfc 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

PREFACE     . 


PAGE 
V 

xxi 


CHAPTER 

I.— 

II.— 

III. 

IV. — 
V 
VI. — 


VII. — 


PART  I. 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  FORCE 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  FORCE     . 
CAUSES   OF    THE   SUCCESS   OF  THE   PHILO- 
SOPHY OF  FORCE       .... 
THE   BIOLOGICAL  ERRORS 
■THE  GENERAL  SOCIOLOGICAL  ERRORS 
■THE  SPECIAL  SOCIOLOGICAL   ERRORS 
■THE    DECLINING    ECONOMIC,    SOCIAL,    AND 

MORAL  EFFECTIVENESS   OF   FORCE 
THE  INTELLECTUAL   REVOLUTION     . 


PART   II. 


20 

53 

96 

114 
175 

212 


MUTUAL  AID  AS  A  FACTOR  OF  SOCIAL 
PROGRESS 

VIII. — FORCE   AND  THE  SOCIAL  STRUCTURE  .       243 

IX. — Darwin's  theory  of  social  progress    268 
X. — ^mutual  aid  as  a  law  of  nature        .     303 

PART  III. 
JUSTICE  AS  A  PRIME  SOCIAL  NEED 

XI. — THE   RELATION    OF    MORALITY    AND   SELF- 
INTEREST           .....  339 
XII. — JUSTICE   AND     THE     EXPANSION    OF    LIFE  362 
XIII. — WORLD  FEDERATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  380 
INDEX 399 


m 


M1G8543 


INTRODUCTION 

PEIS  book  is  the  outcome  of  a  suggestion  which 
I  once  made  to  my  friend  George  Nasmyth, 
to  the  effect  that  Novikov's  work  on  the  appli- 
cation of  Darwinism  to  social  problems  was  notX 
known  to  the  English-speaking  world  as  it  ought 
to  be.  Such  a  presentation  could  not  be  a  mere 
work  of  translation.  For  one  thing,  Novikov  had 
a  mind  that  saw  so  many  sides  of  his  subject  and 
saw  his  arguments  so  completely  that  some  of  his 
books  run  into  unmanageable  lengths.  Now  no 
wise  man  lightly  shoulders  a  labour  of  condensa- 
tion, even  if  the  raw  material  is  his  own.  To  take 
a  man  like  Novikov,  condense  him,  and  still 
deliver  his  full  message  means  knowing  the  subject 
better  than  he  knew  it  himself  and  knowing  his 
mind  better  than  he  did.  That  is  a  large  order. 
What  happens,  of  course,  in  such  a  case  is  that 
the  interpreter  has  to  write  a  new  book,  and  that 
is  what  Nasmyth  has  done. 

This  book  has  to  do  with  one  or  two  of  the  few 
really  fundamental  questions  which  concern  men 
condemned  to  live  together  in  society — as  all  men 
are.  Yet  a  book  of  this  character  is  more  likely  to 
be  read  about  and  talked  about  than  read ;  just  as 


vi  Introduction 

an  earlier  generation  read  about  Darwin  instead  of 
reading  him.  The  process  by  which  in  the  modern 
world  we  undermine  error  seems  to  be  something 
like  this :  A  Spencer  or  a  Darwin  gives  his  life  to  the 
statement  of  a  certain  truth;  a  fractional  part  of 
that  truth — distorted — is  taken  by  some  chatter- 
merchant,  as  the  modern  journalist  has  been 
called,  put  into  a  paragraph,  or  worse  still,  into  a 
head  line,  and  that  for  the  mass  of  us  is  what  we 
know  of  the  life-work  in  question.  Thus  for 
twenty  years  Darwinism,  to  the  great  public,  was 
summed  up  in  the  question,  "Were  men  once 
monkeys?";  and  this  distortion,  this  failure  to 
grasp  the  real  meaning  of  Darwin's  message,  did 
not  affect  only  the  Philistine  and  the  multitude. 
The  social  implications  of  Darwin's  message 
have  been  discussed  by  at  least  some  scientists, 
by  men  of  learning  and  cultivation,  who,  almost 
certainly — astounding  as  the  assertion  may  seem 
— did  not  trouble  to  read  any  one  of  his  books 
through.  The  world  has  fixed  upon  an  interpre- 
tation of  Darwinism  in  applying  it  to  social 
phenomena  which  Darwin  feared  they  would  give 
it,  against  which  he  expressly  warned  them,  and 
concerning  which  he  declared  in  advance  that 
such  an  interpretation  was  not  his.  His  warning 
does  not  seem  to  have  had  the  least  effect.  Such 
phrases  as  "the  struggle  for  existence,"  "survival 
of  the  fittest, "  and  "the  role  of  conflict  and  force" 
have  been  seized  upon  by  reactionary  politicians 
and  sociologists  and  applied  to  their  own  problems 


Misinterpretation  of  Danvin        vii 

and  Darwin  has  been  made  to  deliver  a  message 
which  was  the  direct  contrary  of  the  message 
which  it  was  his  intention  to  deHver.  One  of  the 
pathetic  "situations"  of  the  history  of  Hterature 
is  to  find  Darwin  towards  the  close  of  his  life,  as 
he  watched  the  growing  misinterpretation  of  his 
message,  saying,  with  a  disconsolate  sigh:  "I  am 
beginning  to  despair  of  ever  making  the  majority 
understand  my  notions.  ...  I  must  be  a  very 
bad  explainer." 

A  like  fate  in  some  measure,  of  course,  may  pos- 
sibly await  such  ideas  as  those  with  which  this 
book  deals.  The  author  has  attempted  to  disen- 
tangle a  certain  truth  touching  the  science  of 
society,  the  truth,  namely,  that  the  vast  and 
complex  co-operative  partnerships  of  human  asso- 
ciation do  not  work  towards  efficiency  by  one  of 
the  parties — groups  within  the  nation  or  national 
groups  themselves — exercising  compulsion  or  co- 
ercion upon  the  other,  but  by  free  co-operation 
based  upon  an  intelligent  recognition  of  mutual 
interest  in  such  co-operation.  Now  it  is  very 
difficult  to  realize  how  and  in  what  manner  that 
principle  works  in  society;  and  it  is  partly  because 
it  is  so  difficult  that  society  often  works  so  badly 
and  breaks  down  so  disastrously.  Therefore, 
says  the  average  social  critic,  "  Don't  let  us  trouble 
about  seeing  it  at  all.  Speaking  broadly,  social 
amelioration  in  the  widest  and  deepest  sense  (such 
sense  not  being  limited,  that  is,  to  municipal 
wash-houses   and   straight  streets)  depends  upon 


viii  Introduction 

our  getting  clear  the  true  principles  of  co- 
operation. Therefore,  don't  let  us  study  them." 
That,  quite  simply  and  briefly,  is  the  attitude 
generally  adopted  towards  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject dealt  with  in  this  book.  One  can  foretell  pretty 
well  the  kind  of  criticism  which  this  book  will  pro- 
voke.   It  will  be  along  some  such  lines  as  these: 

The  attempt  to  base  society  upon  anything  but 
force  is  an  idealistic  effort,  a  counsel  of  perfection 
worthy  of  all  praise,  but  not  having  much  relation  to 
practical  affairs.  Human  nature  being  what  it  is, 
men  and  nations  will  only  yield  to  the  argument  of 
the  big  battalion.  The  human  elements  which  at 
bottom  render  an  army  necessary  are  those  which  at 
bottom  render  a  police  force  necessary.  When  human 
nature  has  been  improved  out  of  existence,  men  may 
be  guided  by  sweet  reasonableness,  and  the  element  of 
force  and  compulsion  may  disappear  from  human 
affairs.  But  until  that  happy  millennium  arrives,  the 
ultima  ratio  regum  will  still  be,  both  as  regards  the 
king's  subjects  and  the  king's  enemies,  what  it  always 
has  been.  Society  is  too  complex  a  thing  and  human 
nature  too  wayward  a  thing  for  either  to  be  guided 
by  a  simple  theory,  or  by  a  formula.  From  generation 
to  generation,  whether  in  Aristotelian  or  Platonic 
Greece,  in  a  Palestine  looking  for  a  new  kingdom,  in  a 
France  of  the  eighteenth  century  which  sees  in  demo- 
cratic government  the  birth  of  a  new  heaven  and  a 
new  earth,  in  Chartist  England  improving  on  the 
dream,  men  have  hatched  these  theories,  but  always 
do  we  find  them  breaking  down  in  the  crude  fact  of 
the  policeman  and  the  soldier. 


Human  Nature  and  Reason         ix 

Such,  with  variations  and  adaptations,  will  be 
the  "criticism"  to  which  books  of  this  character 
are  subjected. 

It  is  not  necessary,  of  course,  to  read  a  book  to 
dismiss  it  in  this  manner;  it  suffices  that  it  is 
supposed  to  have  an  idealistic  tendency.  And 
yet  one  has  only  to  vary  the  formula  a  little 
to  see  how  this  sort  of  criticism  stands  self-con- 
demned. Let  us  make  a  variation  and  see  the 
result : 

Man  is  a  blood-thirsty  and  unthinking  creature. 
His  civilization  is  but  skin-deep,  and  beneath  this  thin 
varnish  lie  impulses  of  animalism  reaching  back  to  an 
ancestry  which  stretches  over  asons  of  time.  This 
savage  is  only  held  in  check  by  perceptions,  under- 
standings, and  second  thoughts  so  frail  and  dubious 
that  at  any  moment  he  is  likely  to  get  the  better  of 
them  and  destroy  the  moral  labour  of  toiling  genera- 
tions. Don't  let  us  therefore  bother  to  strengthen 
those  things.  It  is  only  by  virtue  of  understanding, 
of  clearly  realizing  certain  truths  of  human  co-opera- 
tion that  we  can  make  our  civilization  secure;  there- 
fore, do  not  let  us  trouble  to  understand  those  truths. 
It  is  not  practical.  The  practical  thing  is  to  have 
plenty  of  "force" — and  to  place  its  employment  in 
the  hands  of  men  who  don't  realize  in  the  least  how  it 
should  be  used.  Men  are  at  bottom  illogical,  unseeing, 
incapable  of  weighing  the  result  of  their  acts;  in  that 
case  don't  worry  with  sobering  and  rationalizing 
influences ;  the  practical  thing  is  to  place  unrestrictedly 
at  their  disposal  force  of  immeasurable  destructive- 
ness.    Civilization  will  then  be  secure. 


X  Introduction 

These  conclusions  of  the  "practical"  man,  who 
is  so  sure  that  he  is  talking  sense  and  is  so  sure 
that  he  is  not  erecting  theories  or  laying  down 
dogmas,  could  be  extended  indefinitely.  And  I 
am  disposed  to  think  that  the  next  real  step  in 
civilization  will  be  the  discovery  of  the  "practical" 
man  that  he  is  drawing  from  certain  undoubted 
facts  such  as  the  complexity  of  society,  the  frailty 
of  human  wisdom  and  reason,  the  uncertainty 
and  mysteriousness  of  our  impulses,  conclusions 
which  are  the  exact  contrary  of  the  true  ones. 

Such  a  result  would  be  in  keeping  with  the 
process  of  most  human  advancement;  to  be  able 
to  reason  correctly  concerning  those  facts  of 
existence  visible  to  all  is  of  more  worth  than  to 
possess  an  intimate  knowledge  of  phenomena  only 
available  to  specialists.  The  civilization  of  Greece 
or  Rome  had  some  claims  to  consideration  in 
comparison  with  (say)  that  of  Prussia.  Yet  that 
intimate  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  matter 
which  gives  the  Prussian  such  efficiency  in  its 
control  was  terra  incognita  to  the  ancient  civiliza- 
tions. But  the  slight  knowledge  of  physics 
possessed  by  the  ancients  did  not  exclude  a  deep 
understanding  of  certain  essential  facts  in  human 
society  (their  legacy  to  us  in  law  and  civics  is 
evidence  of  that)  which  sufficed  to  construct  a 
civilization  now,  after  twenty  centuries,  still 
feeding  the  roots  of  our  own.  So  far  as  the  earlier 
civilization  was  built  on  a  knowledge  of  the  more 
complex  facts  of  physics  it  was  a  knowledge  not 


Need  of  Social  Engineering         xi 

used  mainly  for  material  ends  at  all.  The  real 
importance  of  astronomy  for  long  lay  not  in  its 
services  to  navigation  or  civil  engineering,  which 
in  its  beginnings  were  perhaps  small,  but  in  its 
effect  on  the  moral  conceptions,  in  its  creation  in 
the  minds  of  men  of  a  sense  of  ordered  law  in  the 
world.  Its  real  service  was  to  enable  them  to 
think  clearly  about  the  universe  and  men's  rela- 
tions to  it  and  to  one  another.  For  Americans, 
perhaps  above  all  others,  is  it  important  to  grasp 
the  real  meaning  of  the  facts  hinted  at  here.  For 
it  is  perhaps  roughly  and  broadly  true  to  say  that 
while  we  have  successfully  established  general 
laws  in  the  field  of  mechanics,  which  have  given 
us  to  a  marvellous  degree  the  material  conquest 
of  nature,  while  the  laws  of  the  physical  world 
are  being  revealed  to  us  in  increasing  measure, 
there  is  no  corresponding  development  of  under- 
standing in  the  field  of  human  relationship,  in  our 
conception  of  human  right  and  obligation,  the 
laws  of  the  social  world,  the  nature  of  the  social 
organism,  the  mechanism  of  human  society.  In 
all  that  we  are  hardly  more  advanced  than  the 
Greeks  or  the  Romans,,  or,  for  that  matter,  the 
Egyptians  and  the  Chaldeans.  We  have  covered 
the  earth  with  a  marvellous  mechanism  which  will 
carry  our  thought  and  understanding  to  the  utmost 
corners;  with  the  invisible  waves  of  wireless 
telegraphy,  with  post-offices,  railroads,  hotels  de 
luxe,  and  cinematograph  shows,  but  we  cannot 
cover  it  with  a  system  of  law.     We  can  analyse 


xii  Introduction 

all  human  food  and  we  know  most  of  the  mysteries 
of  its  growth  and  composition,  but  we  cannot  so 
distribute  it  as  to  give  every  child  a  cup  of  milk. 
We  can  blow  a  town  to  pieces  with  a  handful  of 
dust,  but  we  cannot  destroy  the  monstrous  pile 
of  misery  which  every  great  city  connotes.  Wher- 
ever, leaving  material  things,  our  management 
touches  human  relations,  the  things  of  the  mind, 
it  fails. 

Our  advance  during  the  last  century  in  the 
material  conquest  of  nature  has  been  blinding  in 
its  rapidity,  but  can  any  man  say  that  in  the 
understanding  of  the  laws  of  human  relationship 
we  are  much  beyond  the  Romans  from  whom  we 
still  take  our  jurisprudence,  or  the  Greeks  from 
whom  we  still  take  our  philosophy?  In  the 
mechanical  reproduction  of  the  written  word,  for 
instance,  in  the  mechanism  of  our  modern  news- 
paper, we  have  material  instruments  that  would 
have  seemed  to  Socrates  and  to  Aristotle  achieve- 
ments of  the  gods  themselves.  But  what  of  the 
mind  revealed  in  these  documents,  the  mere 
material  substance  of  which  implies  such  me- 
chanical marvels ;  what  of  the  ideas  which  find  ex- 
pression in  them?  It  would  be  rather  cruel  to  push 
the  comparison.  But  let  the  reader  make  for  him- 
self, with  some  detachment,  the  comparison  of  the 
present-day  newspaper  discussions  in  Paris,  Berlin, 
London,  or  New  York,  with  the  general  discussions 
of  the  Greek  capital  two  thousand  years  ago. 
Would  it  be  very  unjust  to  say  that  the  under- 


Of  What  Avail  Is  Material  Advance?    xiii 

standing  of  the  essentials  of  human  intercourse 
revealed  by  the  men  capable  of  these  modern 
mechanical  wonders  (which  would  have  seemed 
miraculous  to  the  ancient  world)  is  not  very  much 
better  than  that  of  the  desert  tribesmen  who  gave 
us  our  proverbs  and  our  psalms,  and  whose 
mechanical  conquest  of  nature  was  hardly  more 
advanced  than  that  of  the  men  to  whom  the 
manufacture  of  a  stone  axe  represented  the  highest 
achievement  of  human  engineering? 

Now,  all  our  advance  on  the  material  side 
threatens  to  be  of  no  avail  in  the  really  vital  and 
fundamental  things  that  touch  mankind,  because 
our  understanding  of  the  natiire  of  human  associa- 
tions has  not  kept  pace  with  our  understanding  of 
matter  and  its  control.  Of  what  avail  is  our 
immense  increase  in  wealth  production  if  we  do 
not  know  how  to  distribute  it  in  the  order  of  our 
most  vital  needs — if  the  total  net  result  of  our 
discovery  and  achievements  is  to  give  still  more  to 
those  who  have  already  too  much  and  to  render 
the  underworld  still  more  dependent,  their  lives 
still  more  precarious?  What  should  we  say,  asks 
Shaw,  of  the  starving  man  who,  on  being  given  a 
dollar,  forthwith  spends  it  all  on  a  bottle  of  scent 
for  his  handkerchief?  Yet  that  is  what  the  modern 
world  does,  and  it  is,  we  are  told,  incapable  of 
doing  anything  else,  so  intellectually  bankrupt 
are  we  to  assume  it.  So  immense  is  the  failure 
on  this  side  that  responsible  students  of  the 
comparative  condition  of  men  seriously  question 


xiv  Introduction 

whether  the  mass  in  our  society  are  in  essentials 
either  morally  or  materially  better  off  than  those 
of  the  thirteenth  century. 

Evidence  enough  remains,  as  one  good  historian 
points  out,  to  show  that  there  was  in  ancient  Rome 
as  in  London  or  New  York  today,  a  preponderat- 
ing mass  of  those  who  loved  their  children  and 
their  homes,  who  were  good  neighboiirs,  and 
faithful  friends,  who  conscientiously  discharged 
their  civil  duties.  Even  the  Eastern  Roman 
Empire,  that  not  many  years  ago  was  usually 
dismissed  with  sharp  contempt,  is  now  recovered 
to  history,  and  many  centuries  in  its  fluctuating 
phases  are  shown  to  have  been  epochs  of  an  es- 
tablished state,  with  well-devised  laws  well  admin- 
istered, with  commerce  prosperously  managed,  and 
social  order  conveniently  worked  and  maintained. 

And  one  remembers,  of  course,  the  sad  doubt  of 
Mill: 

It  is  questionable  if  all  the  mechanical  inventions 
yet  made  have  lightened  the  day's  toil  of  any  human 
being.  They  have  enabled  a  greater  population  to 
live  the  same  life  of  drudgery  and  imprisonment,  and 
an  increased  number  to  make  fortunes.  But  they 
have  not  yet  begun  to  effect  those  great  changes  in 
human  destiny  which  it  is  in  their  nature  and  in  their 
futurity  to  accomplish. 

So  that  unless  we  can  make  some  equivalent 
advance  in  the  understanding  of  the  laws  and 
principles  of  human  association,  in  the  manage- 


Mechanism  of  Human  Association  xv 

ment  of  society,  all  our  advance  on  the  material 
side,  the  management  of  matter,  may  go  for 
nothing,  or  conceivably  even  worse  than  nothing. 

It  is  conceivable,  for  instance,  as  an  ingenious 
novelist  has  suggested,  that  our  researches  in 
radio-activity  might  give  us  the  secret  of  atomic 
disintegration  so  as  to  make  a  cent's  worth  of 
rock  equivalent  in  value  as  a  source  of  energy  to  a 
train  load  of  coal — to  multiply  the  wealth  of  the 
world  a  thousand  times — and  the  result  of  it  to  be 
merely  more  poverty  of  the  many,  and  luxury  and 
dangerous  power  on  the  part  of  the  few. 

The  great  need,  therefore,  is  an  understanding 
of  the  nature  and  mechanism  of  human  associa- 
tion, a  realization  of  its  more  fundamental  laws. 
It  does  not  help  us  to  take  the  position  that  the 
present  defects  of  society  are  the  result  of  a 
"plot"  on  the  part  of  a  powerful  few  and  that  if 
their  rule  be  broken,  a  new  earth  would  come  into 
being  next  Tuesday  morning.  If  we  ask  ourselves, 
"What  would  happen  if  the  reins  of  government 
were  seized  by  a  group  of  very  radical  and  ad- 
vanced Socialists  or  Syndicalists,  or  other  social 
reformers?"  we  are  obliged  to  reply  that  nothing 
at  all  would  happen;  things  would  go  on  very 
much  as  usual.  It  has  occurred  more  than  once 
in  Europe  that  wild  revolutionaries  have  achieved 
power  and  they  generally  end  by  accomplishing 
less  than  their  more  conservative  colleagues  and 
becoming  more  reactionary. 

They    were    obliged    to    realize    that    society, 


xvi  Introdi.ction 

because  it  is  an  organism,  cannot  stop  breathing 
while  experiments  are  made  with  its  internal 
mechanism.  The  mere  possession  of  power  does 
not  give  control  either  over  a  complex  machine  or 
a  complex  organism.  If  the  mechanism  of  your 
motor  car  works  imperfectly,  it  serves  no  purpose 
that  you  have  a  crow-bar  which  will  smash  the 
whole  thing  in  pieces.  You  must  "know  how"  or 
you  are  helpless,  since  the  power  of  destruction 
serves  no  purpose  at  all. 

And  the  revolutionaries  who  have  from  time  to 
time  "arrived"  have  not  "known  how."  For  the 
social  organism  is  even  more  complex  than  a 
motor  car,  and  its  general  control  is  in  the  hands 
not  of  experts  but  of  all  of  us. 

Can  we  ever  hope  that  "the  general  mind"  will 
rise  to  effective  knowledge  fitting  men  for  the 
control  of  their  own  social  destiny?  In  these 
complex  matters  where  the  experts  differ,  is  there 
any  hope  that  the  mass  will  ever  achieve  sufficient 
capacity  to  enable  social  progress  to  equal  the 
advances  made  in  those  material  sciences  which 
are  in  the  hands  of  experts? 

Many  would  answer  that  question  in  the  nega- 
tive, although  a  negative  answer  involves  a 
paralysing  pessimism  which  one  is  glad  to  think 
is  no  part  of  the  American  genius. 

But  I  do  not  think  that  a  negative  answer  need 
be  given.  I  will  appeal  to  an  analogy  that  I  have 
used  elsewhere. 

In  the  sixteenth  century  Montaigne,  who  did 


An  Intellectual  Revolution        xvii 

not  believe  in  witchcraft  and  saw  the  evil  that  it 
brought,  wrote  to  this  effect : 

The  day  will  never  come  when  the  common  ruck 
of  men  will  cease  to  believe  in  witchcraft.  If  the 
lawyers  and  judges  of  our  modern  sixteenth-century 
France,  men  trained  to  sift  evidence  and  learned  in 
science,  can  be  so  far  deceived  as  to  send  thousands  of 
victims  to  their  deaths  for  impossible  crimes,  how  can 
we  ever  hope  that  the  common  man  will  avoid  these 
errors  ? 

Yet,  ask  a  ten-year-old  boy  of  our  time  whether 
he  thinks  it  likely  that  an  old  woman  would  or 
could  change  herself  into  a  cow  or  a  goat,  and  he 
will  almost  always  promptly  reply:  "Certainly 
not."  (I  have  put  this  many  times  to  the  test  of 
experiment.)  What  enables  the  unlearned  boy 
to  decide  right  where  the  learned  judge  decided 
wrong?  You  say  it  is  the  "instinct"  of  the  boy. 
But  the  instinct  of  the  seventeenth-century  boy 
(like  the  learning  of  the  sixteenth,  or  seventeenth- 
century  judge)  taught  him  the  exact  reverse. 
Something  has  happened.    What  is  it? 

It  is  probably  the  unconscious  application  on 
the  part  of  the  boy,  of  the  inductive  method  of 
reasoning  (of  which  he  has  never  heard,  and  could 
not  define),  and  the  general  attitude  of  mind 
towards  phenomiena  which  comes  of  that  habit. 
Again,  to  quote  myself:  "He  forms  by  reasoning 
correctly  (on  the  prompting  of  parents,  nurses,  and 
teachers)  about  a  few  simple  facts — which  impress 


xviii  Introduction 

him  by  their  visibiHty  and  tangibility — a  working 
hypothesis  of  how  things  happen  in  the  world, 
which,  while  not  infallibly  applied — while,  indeed, 
often  landing  the  boy  into  mistakes — is  far  more 
trustworthy  as  a  rule  than  that  formed  by  the 
learned  judge  reasoning  incorrectly  from  an 
immense  number  of  facts." 

Such  is  the  simple  basis  of  this  very  amazing 
miracle,  the  great  fact  which  is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  main  difference  between  the  modern  and 
mediaeval  world,  between  the  Western  and  Eastern 
civilizations. 

It  has  two  outstanding  lessons  for  us:  it  shows 
the  incalculable  service  that  the  correction  of  a 
fundamental  misconception  or  wrong  principle 
may  achieve;  and  it  shows  that  such  correction  of 
general  principle  may  be  the  unintended  but  in- 
evitable by-product  of  the  correction  of  error  in 
some  special  case. 

For  the  revival  of  the  inductive  method  and  all 
that  it  has  involved  was  in  large  part  the  unin- 
tended result  of  the  religious  reformation.  And 
it  has  had  these  immense  results  because,  like  the 
views  which  the  author  of  this  book  is  urging,  it 
was  a  readjustment  of  ideas  concerning  the  place 
of  force  in  certain  activities  of  life. 

A  further  and  very  profound  readjustment  of 
those  same  ideas  followed  upon  the  work  of  one 
man,  Charles  Darwin.  But  his  work  and  message 
have,  as  he  himself  so  pathetically  declared,  been 
misinterpreted   and   misunderstood   even   by   his 


An  Intellectual  Revolution         xix 

own  "disciples."  Darwinism  has  come  to  stand 
for  a  social  doctrine  which  Darwin  himself  re- 
pudiated. And  now,  after  fifty  years,  we  may  well 
take  stock  of  the  social  conceptions  (or  miscon- 
ceptions) which  have  grown  up  around  "Dar- 
winism" and  see  what  aid  biological  laws,  half  a 
century  after  Darwin,  give  us  in  the  framing  of 
social  principles.  It  was  a  work  which  direly 
needed  doing;  and  all  students  of  those  subjects 
which  really  do  represent  the  social  foundations 
will  be  grateful  to  Dr.  Nasmyth  for  having 
contributed  to  it. 

Norman  Angell. 

Ithaca,  New  York, 
June  30,  1 91 5. 


PREFACE 

THIS  book  is  the  outcome  of  a  study,  com- 
menced several  years  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  war,  with  the  object  of  making  available 
for  English  readers  some  of  the  important  results 
of  recent  researches  on  the  applications  of  Darwin's 
theory  to  human  society.  This  subject  is  of 
course  much  broader  than  the  single  question  of 
war;  in  fact,  as  I  have  tried  to  show,  especially 
in  Chapter  VIIL,  the  philosophy  of  force  has 
affected  the  entire  structure  of  society.  But  it 
frequently  happens  that  it  is  through  the  discus- 
sion of  some  special  and  critical  problem  that  the 
human  race  establishes  general  principles  which 
serve  for  the  solution  of  a  larger  group  of  social 
problems,  and  this  is  the  consideration  which  has 
led  me  to  devote  a  large  amount  of  attention  to 
the  special  question  of  war,  in  this  general  study 
of  the  social  applications  of  the  Darwinian  theory. 
It  is  a  significant  commentary  on  the  strength 
of  the  deeper  social  and  democratic  currents  in 
modem  Russia  that  the  most  important  contri- 
butions in  this  field  have  all  been  made  by  Russian 
scientists.  The  rediscovery  of  Darwin's  social 
message  may  be  dated  from  a  lecture  before  a 
congress  of  Russian  naturaHsts  in  January,   1880, 


xxii  Preface 

by  the  eminent  Russian  zoologist,  Prof essor  Kessler, 
formerly  dean  of  the  University  of  St.  Petersburg. 
Like  so  many  valuable  contributions  to  science 
published  only  in  the  Russian  language,  however, 
it  remained  almost  entirely  unknown  to  the  out- 
side world,  and  it  was  not  until  the  next  decade 
that  one  of  his  disciples.  Prince  Kropotkin,  de- 
veloped his  ideas  and  made  them  available  for 
English  readers  in  a  series  of  remarkable  articles 
in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  afterwards  reprinted 
in  book  form  as  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution. 
Later,  the  subject  was  still  further  developed  by 
another  Russian  thinker  and  worker  of  genius, 
Novikov  (French:  Novicow),  formerly  vice- 
president  of  the  International  Institute  of  Soci- 
ology, whose  score  of  volumes  on  social  theory 
mark  the  beginning  of  a  new  epoch  in  the  social 
sciences.  Unfortunately,  Novikov,  unlike  his 
predecessors  Kessler  and  Kropotkin,  did  not  realize 
that  he  had  the  authority  of  Darwin  upon  his 
side,  and  includes  him  in  the  crushing  criticism 
which  he  directs  against  the  distorted  "social 
Darwinism"  that  has  come  to  represent  the  social 
applications  of  the  theory  of  evolution  so  largely 
in  modem  thought. 

The  misunderstanding  of  Darwin's  social  theory 
is  so  widespread,  and  his  writings  on  the  subject 
are  so  little  known,  that  I  have  thought  it  desir- 
able to  state  his  theory  of  social  progress  as  far 
as  possible  in  his  own  words,  and  to  include  in  the 
present  volume  a  large  number  of  representative 


Preface  xxiii 

quotations  from  The  Descent  of  Man.  I  have  also 
drawn  largely  upon  Novikov's  works,  especially 
La  Critique  du  Darwinisme  social  and  La  Justice 
et  V expansion  de  la  vie.  If  this  introduction  should 
lead  to  an  increased  interest  in  Novikov's  writings, 
to  a  wider  study  of  his  epoch-making  contribu- 
tions to  a  more  scientific  social  theory,  and  to  a 
renewed  discussion  of  the  whole  question  of  the 
application  of  Darwin's  theory  to  human  society, 
my  chief  purpose  in  publishing  this  book  will 
have  been  realized. 

George  Nasmyth. 

Cambridge,  Mass., 
January,  1916. 


PART  I 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  FORCE 


CHAPTER   I 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  FORCE 

WHAT  object  does  human  society  set  before 
itself?  What  is  the  purpose  for  which 
the  State — our  State — exists? 

No  problem  of  sociology  can  be  discussed 
effectively  without  raising  this  fundamental  ques- 
tion. Sociological  discussion  usually  comes  to  it 
at  the  last;  obviously  it  should  raise  it  at  the 
beginning. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  of  course  impossible  to 
test  the  value  of  any  instrument  or  method  as  a 
means  to  an  end  unless  we  realize  clearly  what  that 
end  is.  Otherwise,  when  we  do  come  to  grapple 
with  the  question  of  "what  it  is  all  for,"  we  shall 
find  ourselves  trying  to  make  the  end  fit  the  means, 
the  task  fit  the  tool,  and  not  choose  our  tool  to  fit 
our  task. 

We  could  find  no  better  illustration  of  what  I 
mean  by  this  than  the  social  and  moral  story  of 
Prussia — indeed,  of  Europe — and  the  meaning  of 
the  war  which  began  in  August,  19 14. 

Until  a  generation  or  so  ago  German  thought 
and  moral  influence  were  undoubtedly  working 

3 


4  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

towards  ends  which  Christendom  as  a  whole 
pronounced  "good":  Kant  and  Fichte,  Goethe 
and  Schiller  stood  for  moral  values  upon  which 
Christendom  as  a  whole  was  agreed. 

But  as  an  incident  of  the  protection  of  German 
society  from  outside  aggression — as  a  mere  detail 
of  military  protective  measures — certain  political 
and  military  devices  were  introduced  into  the 
German  State ;  a  certain  tool  was  adopted.  At  the 
time  of  their  introduction  these  changes  were  not 
expected  to  alter  the  "ends"  for  which  Germans 
lived  their  lives;  nor  was  it  anticipated  that  they 
would  lead  to  any  reconsideration  of  moral  values. 

But  the  introduction  of  those  changes — that 
tool — has  recast  the  moral  values  of  German 
society  from  top  to  bottom  and  seems  in  a  fair 
way  to  recast  the  moral  values  of  European 
society  as  a  whole — including  our  own.  In  other 
words,  the  danger  which  Mommsen  foresaw  for 
Prussia  is  a  danger  which  now  menaces  all  Western 
civilization.    A  generation  ago  Mommsen  said: 

Have  a  care  lest  in  this  country,  which  has  been  at 
once  a  power  in  arms  and  a  power  in  intelligence,  the 
intelligence  should  vanish  and  nothing  but  the  pure 
military  State  should  remain.^ 

Those  things  for  which  Kant  and  Fichte,  Goethe 
and  Schiller  stood  have  been  rejected  or  profoundly 
revised  by  this  kind  of  process : 

'  Quoted  by  Professor  Hicks  in  the  Hihhert  Journal,  October, 
1914.    CJ.  also  W.  H.  Dawson,  Modern  Germany,  p.  3. 


Struggle  for  Existence  in  Society     5 

At  a  given  stage  of  political  development  in 
Germany,  German  rulers  urged  that  in  order  to 
protect  the  moral  and  intellectual  heritage  of 
Germany,  such  and  such  measures  had  to  be 
taken.  They  were  taken  and  then  developed. 
It  was  then  seen  that  their  use  and  development 
made  it  necessary  to  discard  or  sacrifice  the  moral 
and  intellectual  possessions  which  it  had  been  the 
original  object  of  the  measures  to  protect. 

I  am  not  discussing  for  the  moment  whether 
the  tool  used  was  good  or  bad ;  I  am  only  pointing 
out  that  its  use — whether  for  good  or  ill — trans- 
forms all  social  and  moral  values,  even  the  most 
fundamental.  I  want  to  make  clear  that  force  is 
not  merely  a  tool — that  it  is  a  root  of  moral  ideas, 
that  its  use  colours  all  human  values  and  deter- 
mines the  nature  of  society. 

The  importance  therefore  which  any  social 
instrument  may  assume  makes  it  necessary  to 
submit  it  to  close  scrutiny.  What  follows  is  an 
attempt  to  submit  one  such  instrimient — force — 
which  mankind  has  used  in  the  process  of  evolu- 
tion, to  critical  examination;  to  probe  scientifi- 
cally the  philosophy  upon  which  the  use  of  this 
tool  is  based. 

The  philosophy  of  force  is  the  theory  of  society 
which  is  based  on  the  belief  in  the  effectiveness  and 
inevitability  of  the  use  of  force  in  human  relation- 
ships to  advance  those  ends,  economic,  social,  and 
moral,  for  which  men  live  and  strive.  In  inter- 
national relations  its  modern  name  is  militarism. 


7 


6  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

The  philosophy  of  force  claims  to  find  its  scientific 
foundation  in  the  application  of  Darwin's  theory 
of  natural  selection  and  the  struggle  for  existence 
to  human  society. 

If,  then,  we  are  to  understand  this  instru- 
ment, we  must  begin  our  study  with  the  foun- 
dations of  its  philosophy  in  the  Darwinian 
theory. 

The  current  view  of  the  Darwinian  theory  in  its 
relation  to  human  association  is  summarized  by 
one  of  the  foremost  exponents  of  the  theory  of 
evolution  as  follows: 

'  The  theory  of  selection  teaches  that  in  human  life, 
as  in  animal  and  plant  life,  everywhere  and  at  all 
times,  only  a  small  and  chosen  minority  can  exist  and 
flourish,  while  the  enormous  majority  starve  and  per- 
ish miserably  and  more  or  less  prematurely.  .  .  . 
The  cruel  and  merciless  struggle  for  existence  which 
rages  throughout  living  nature,  and  in  the  course  of 
nature  must  rage,  this  unceasing  and  inexorable 
competition  of  all  living  creatures  is  an  incontestable 
fact;  only  the  picked  minority  of  the  qualified  fittest 
is  in  a  position  to  resist  it  successfully,  while  the  great 
majority  of  the  competitors  must  necessarily  perish 
miserably.  We  may  profoundly  lament  this  tragical 
state  of  things,  but  we  can  neither  controvert  nor 
alter  it.  "Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen." 
This  principle  of  selection  is  as  far  as  possible  from 
democratic;  on  the  contrary  it  is  aristocratic  in  the 
strictest  sense  of  the  word.^ 

*  Ernst  Haeckel,  Freedom  in  Science  and  Teaching,  p.  93. 


"Social  Darwinism"  7 

This  view  of  the  theory  of  selection  is  not  an 
isolated  interpretation ;  on  the  contrary  it  is  the 
view  held  by  the  great  majority  of  the  authorities 
on  the  Darwinian  theory,  with  a  few  exceptions,  as 
well  as  by  the  immense  body  of  popular  opinion 
which  follows  the  view  of  these  authorities.  We 
live  in  a  world  of  struggle,  and  man  is  a  fighting 
animal,  say  the  adherents  of  this  view. 

We  must  therefore  resign  ourselves  to  the  fact 
of  struggle  as  one  of  the  laws  of  life,  as  one  of  the 
hard  facts  of  existence  in  a  world  governed  by  the 
law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  where  the  weakest 
goes  to  the  wall  and  all  life  is  but  a  life  of  battle. 
War  is  held  to  be  a  part  of  this  great  law  of 
evolution,  which  runs  throughout  the  universe, 
and  however  much  we  may  regret  the  horrors  and 
the  suffering  which  it  brings  in  its  train,  we  must 
recognize  that  war  is  the  cause  of  social  progress. 

The  eminent  Russian  sociologist,  Novikov,  has 
defined  "social  Darwinism"  as  "the  doctrine  that 
collective  homicide  is  the  cause  of  the  progress  of 
the  human  race."  The  name,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
is  unjust  to  Darwin.  A  more  accurate  description 
of  this  doctrine  would  be  "distorted  social  Dar- 
winism." But  the  doctrine  itself,  which  Novikov 
defines  in  such  paradoxical  terms,  is  a  basic  part  of 
the  teaching  associated  with  the  names  of  some 
of  the  most  eminent  sociologists. 

Before  beginning  the  critical  study  of  the  doc- 
trine, it  may  be  well  to  show  by  quotations  from 
the  writings  of  scientific  men,  sociologists,  and 


8  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

philosophers  of  all  countries  how  universal  is  the 
belief  that  war  is  the  cause  of  social  progress. 
Thus  Herbert  Spencer,^  writing  in  1876,  has 
developed  his  sociology  on  the  basis  of  the  struggle 
for  existence: 

As  carried  on  throughout  the  animate  world  at 
large,  the  struggle  for  existence  has  been  an  indis- 
pensable means  to  evolution.  Not  simply  do  we  see 
that,  in  the  competition  among  individuals  of  the 
same  kind,  survival  of  the  fittest  has  from  the  begin- 
ning furthered  the  production  of  a  higher  type ;  but  we 
see  that  to  the  unceasing  warfare  between  species  is 
mainly  due  both  growth  and  organization.  Without 
universal  conflict  there  would  have  been  no  develop- 
ment  of   the   active   powers.  .  .  . 

Similarly  with  social  organisms.  We  must  recog- 
nize the  truth  that  the  struggles  for  existence  between 
societies  has  been  instrumental  to  their  evolution. 
Neither  the  consolidation  and  re-consolidation  of 
small  groups  into  large  ones ;  nor  the  organization  of 
such  compound  and  doubly  compound  groups ;  nor  the 
concomitant  developments  of  those  aids  to  a  higher  life 
which  civilization  has  brought ;  would  have  been  possi- 
ble without  inter-tribal  and  inter-national  conflicts. 
Social  co-operation  is  initiated  by  joint  defence  and 
offence;  and  from  the  co-operation  thus  initiated  all 
kinds  of  co-operations  have  arisen.  Inconceivable  as 
have  been  the  horrors  caused  by  the  universal  an- 
tagonism which,  beginning  with  the  chronic  hostilities 
of  small  hordes  tens  of  thousands  of  years  ago,  has 

'  Principles  of  Sociology,  vol.  ii.,  part  5,  "Political  Institutions," 
p.  241. 


War  the  Cause  of  Human  Progress     9 

ended  in  the  occasional  vast  battles  of  immense 
nations,  we  must  nevertheless  admit  that  without  it 
the  world  would  still  have  been  inhabited  only  by 
men  of  feeble  types  sheltering  in  caves  and  living  on 
wild  food. 

If  the  world  were  still  inhabited  by  men  seeking 
a  shelter  in  caves,  and  if  the  great  societies  of 
nations  had  never  been  formed,  the  progress  of 
the  human  race  would  not  have  taken  place. 
Progress,  therefore,  according  to  Herbert  Spencer, 
is  due  to  war, — that  is  to  say,  to  collective  homicide. 

A  possible  objection  that  war  and  collective 
homicide  are  not  synonymous  is  met  by  Novikov 
by  an  appeal  to  the  actual  facts  : 

What  takes  place  in  war?  The  combatants  of  the 
two  armies  come  together.  They  commence  to  kill 
each  other  with  swords,  rifles,  and  cannons.  A  battle 
is  a  series  of  homicides,  accomplished  in  the  same  way 
and  at  the  same  time;  therefore  a  collective  assassina- 
tion. The  fact  that  the  two  adversaries  may  have 
equal  chances  and  attack  each  other  openly  does  not 
make  any  change  in  the  essential  nature  of  the  action. 
In  an  individual  duel'  the  struggle  may  be  accomplished 
also,  not  only  with  complete  fairness,  but  even  with  a 
great  display  of  courtesy.  This  does  not  change  the 
fact  that  when  one  adversary  or  both  of  them  lose 
their  lives  the  duel  is  only,  in  fact,  a  homicide.  In 
war  incidentally,  it  is  not  at  all  believed  that  one 
is  obliged  to  fight  fairly.  Surprises  and  ruses  are 
practised  continually/ 

*  La  Critique  du  Darwinisme  Social,  p.  4. 


lo  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

The  philosophy  of  force  has  been  thoroughly 
developed  by  a  German  sociologist,  G.  Ratzen- 
hofer/  who  maintains  that  the  formation  of  the 
States  can  be  brought  about  only  by  violence. 

The  formation  of  the  States  did  not  result  from  the 
play  of  free  interests  as  did  the  fonnation  of  the  horde, 
of  tribes,  of  parties,  and  of  associations  in  general; 
no,  it  arose  from  antagonistic  interests  and  as  a 
consequence  it  is  a  coercive  organization.  .  .  . 

All  evolution  is  the  result  of  competition,  but  in 
the  case  of  the  State,  violence  itself  is  the  agent  which 
has  created  it.  Since  this  violence  follows  the  path  of 
social  necessity,  since  it  acts  in  the  direction  of  true 
natural  interests,  this  is  the  criterion  by  which  we  can 
judge  that  the  State  realizes  its  mission  in  the  social 
life.  Every  time  we  disregard  this  fundamental 
conception  of  the  State,  every  time  we  admit  the 
opinion  that  the  State  could  proceed  as  a  simple 
effect  of  civilization,  of  a  pacific  union,  or  of  any  other 
combinations  of  this  nature,  we  enter  into  contradic- 
tion with  the  teaching  of  sociology  and  we  prepare  the 
way  for  political  experiences  which  terminate  in  a 
most  lamentable  fashion. 

The  eminent  American  sociologist,  Professor 
Lester  F.  Ward,  who  has  been  largely  influenced 
by  the  work  of  Ratzenhofer,  and  of  the  Polish 
sociologist,  Ludwig  Gumplowicz,  ^  traces  the  origin 
of  the  entire  system  of  industrial  production  to 

^  Die  Sociologische  Erkentniss,  Leipzig,  Brockhaus,  1898,  pp. 

233-34- 

'  Der  Rassenkampf. 


The  State  Created  by  Violence     ii 

conquest  and  war.    He  traces  the  analogy  between 
biological  and  industrial  evolution  thus : 

Just  as  organic  evolution  began  with  the  metazoic 
stage,  so  social  evolution  began  with  the  metasocial 
stage.  So,  too,  as  the  metazoic  stage  was  brought 
about  through  the  union  of  several  or  many  uni- 
cellular organisms  in  a  multicellular  organism,  so  the 
metasocial  stage  was  brought  about  by  the  union  of 
two  or  more  simple  hordes  or  clans  into  a  compound 
group  of  amalgamated  hordes  or  clans.  .  .  .  Two 
groups  thus  brought  into  proximity  may  be,  and 
usually  are,  utterly  unknown  to  each  other.  The 
mutual  encroachment  is  certain  to  produce  hostilities. 
War  is  the  result,  and  one  of  the  two  groups  is  almost 
certain  to  prove  the  superior  warrior  and  to  conquer 
the  other.  The  first  step  in  the  whole  process  is  the 
conquest  of  one  race  by  another.  .  .  .  The  greater 
part  of  the  conquered  race  is  enslaved  and  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  begins  here.  The  slaves  are  compelled 
to  work,  and  labour  in  the  economic  sense  begins  here. 
The  enslavement  of  the  producers  and  the  compelling 
them  to  work  was  the  only  way  in  which  mankind 
could  have  been  taught  to  labour,  and  therefore  the 
whole  industrial  system  of  society  begins  here.  ^ 

In  his  treatise  on  Pure  Sociology,  Professor 
Ward  has  generalized  the  influence  of  war  as 
follows : 

It  is  impossible  in  dealing  with  this  subject  to  avoid 
the  bearing  of  war  and  peace  on  human  progress. 
All  civilized  men  realize  the  horrors  of  war,  and  if 

» American  Journal  of  Sociology,  March,  1905,  p.  594. 


12  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

sociology  has  any  utilitarian  purposes  one  of  these 
certainly  is  to  diminish  or  mitigate  these  horrors. 
But  pure  sociology  is  simply  an  inquiry  into  the  social 
facts  and  conditions  and  has  nothing  to  do  with 
utilitarian  purposes.  In  making  this  objective  inquiry, 
it  finds  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  war  has  been  the 
chief  and  leading  condition  of  human  progress. 

This  is  perfectly  obvious  to  any  one  who  under- 
stands the  meaning  of  the  struggle  of  races.  When 
races  stop  struggling,  progress  ceases.  They  want 
no  progress  and  they  have  none.  For  all  primitive 
and  early,  undeveloped  races,  certainly,  the  condition 
of  peace  is  a  condition  of  social  stagnation.  We  may 
enlarge  to  our  soul's  content  on  the  blessings  of  peace, 
but  the  facts  remain  as  stated,  and  cannot  be  success- 
fully disproved.^ 

The  philosophy  of  force  is  found  not  only  among 
the  men  of  science  but  is  widely  held  by  the 
philosophers  in  all  nations.  Thus,  in  France, 
Ernest  Renan^  has  given  the  doctrine  wide 
currency : 

If  the  stupidity,  the  negligence,  the  laziness,  the 
improvidence  of  states  did  not  have  as  a  consequence 
to  make  them  fight,  it  is  difficult  to  say  to  what  degree 
of  abasement  the  human  species  might  descend.  War 
is  in  a  way  one  of  the  conditions  of  progress,  the  cut 
of  the  whip  which  prevents  a  country  from  going  to 
sleep,  forcing  satisfied  mediocrity  itself  to  leave  its 
apathy.  Man  is  only  sustained  by  effort  and  struggle. 
.  .  .  The  day  on  which  humanity  becomes  a  great 

'  P.  238. 

' La Reforme  Intellectuelle et  Morale,  Paris,  i87i,p  iii. 


No  Civilized  Societies  without  War    13 

Roman  Empire,  pacified  and  not  having  any  more 
external  enemies,  will  be  the  day  on  which  morality 
und  intelligence  will  run  the  greatest  dangers. 

In  England,  Ruskin  has  held  war  to  be  the 
source  of  all  the  arts.  In  an  address  on  war 
delivered  at  Woolwich  Arsenal,  he  said': 

.  .  .  War  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  arts  ...  of 
all  the  high  virtues  and  faculties  of  men.  .  .  .  There 
is  no  great  art  possible  to  a  nation  but  that  which  is 
based  on  battle.  .  .  .  All  great  nations  learned  their 
truth  of  word,  and  strength  of  thought,  in  war;  they 
were  nourished  in  war  and  wasted  by  peace;  taught 
by  war  and  deceived  by  peace;  trained  by  war  and 
betrayed  by  peace. 

In  Germany  Nietzsche  has  given  the  philosophy 
of  force  almost  classic  expression.  In  Nietzsche 
we  find  the  same  idea  as  in  Renan;  that  peace 
leads  to  stagnation,  war  to  progress: 

Ye  shall  love  peace  as  a  means  to  new  wars,  and  the 
short  peace  better  than  the  long. 

I  do  not  advise  you  to  work,  but  to  fight.  I  do  not 
advise  you  to  conclude  peace,  but  to  conquer.  Let 
your  work  be  a  fight,  your  peace  a  victory ! 

One  cannot  be  silent  and  sit  still  unless  one  hath 
bow  and  arrow.  Otherwise  one  talketh  and  quarreleth. 
Let  your  peace  be  a  victory ! 

Ye  say,  a  good  cause  will  hallow  even  war?  I  say 
unto  you:  a  good  war  halloweth  every  cause.'* 

'  The  Crown  of  Wild  Olive. 

'  Thus  Spake  Zarathustra :  I.  "  Of  War  and  Warriors." 


14  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

The  intellectual  and  moral  glorification  of  war 
which  characterizes  the  militaristic  school  of  all 
nations  is  derived  from  the  sociologists  and  philo- 
sophers who  have  distorted  the  social  teachings  of 
Darwin.  But  in  applying  the  philosophy  of  force 
to  practical  life  the  men  of  action  have  discarded 
all  the  qualifications  with  which  the  scientific  men 
have  surrounded  their  statements.  Thus,  al- 
though Herbert  Spencer  bases  his  entire  theory  of 
social  evolution  on  struggle,  he  hastens  to  qualify 
his  theory  by  the  statement  that  this  does  not 
apply  to  the  future ' : 

Mark  now,  however,  that  while  this  merciless 
discipline  of  Nature  "red  in  tooth  and  claw,"  has 
been  essential  to  the  progress  of  sentient  life,  its  per- 
sistence through  all  time  with  all  creatures  must  not 
be  inferred.  The  high  organization,  evolved  by  and 
for  this  universal  conflict,  is  not  necessarily  forever 
employed  to  like  ends.  The  resulting  power  and 
intelligence  admit  of  being  far  otherwise  employed.  .  .  . 

But  now  observe  that  the  inter-social  struggle  for 
existence  which  has  been  indispensable  in  evolving 
societies  will  not  necessarily  play  in  the  future  a  part 
like  that  which  it  has  played  in  the  past.  Recognizing 
our  indebtedness  to  war  for  forming  great  communities 
and  developing  their  structures,  we  may  yet  infer  that 
the  acquired  powers,  available  for  other  activities, 
will  lose  their  original  activities.  While  conceding 
that  without  these  perpetual  bloody  strifes,  civilized 
societies  could  not  have  arisen,  and  that  an  adapted 
form  of  human  nature,  fierce  as  well  as  intelligent,  was 

»  Principles  of  Sociology,  vol.  ii.,  p.  242. 


War  Established  by  God  15 

a  needful  concomitant,  we  may  at  the  same  time  hold 
that  such  societies  having  been  produced,  the  brutality 
of  nature  in  their  units  which  was  necessitated  by  the 
process,  ceasing  to  be  necessary  with  the  cessation  of 
the  process,  will  disappear. 

Thus  his  final  judgment  is  clearly  rendered : 

From  war  has  been  gained  all  that  it  had  to  give.  .  .  . 
Only  further  evils  are  to  be  looked  for  from  the  con- 
tinuance of  militancy  in  civilized  nations.^ 

No  such  qualifications  disturb  the  conclusions  of 
the  militarists.  Shortly  after  Ernest  Renan  wrote 
the  passage  cited  above,  Marshal  vonMoltke  wrote, 
in  a  letter  to  BluntschU  which  has  become  famous : 

Perpetual  peace  is  a  dream,  and  not  even  a  beautiful 
dream.  War  is  an  element  of  the  order  of  the  world 
established  by  God.  The  most  noble  virtues  of  men 
are  developed  in  it.  .  .  .  Without  war  the  world 
would  stagnate  and  lose  itself  in  materialism. 

The  philosophy  is  held  by  statesmen  as  well  as 
militarists.  In  his  book  on  Weltstadt  und  Friedens- 
problem,  Prof.  Baron  Karl  von  Stengel,  a  jurist 
who  was  one  of  Germany's  delegates  at  the  first 
Hague  Peace  Conference,  has  a  chapter  entitled, 
"The  Significance  of  War  for  the  Development  of 
Humanity,"  in  which  he  says: 

War  has  more  often  facilitated  than  hindered 
progress.    Athens  and  Rome,  not  only  in  spite  of,  but 

» P.  664. 


1 6  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

just  because  of  their  many  wars,  rose  to  the  zenith  of 
civiHzation.  Great  states  Hke  Germany  and  Italy 
are  welded  into  nationalities  only  through  blood 
and  iron. 

Storm  purifies  the  air  and  destroys  the  frail  trees, 
leaving  the  sturdy  oak  standing.  War  is  a  test  of  a 
nation's  political,  physical,  and  intellectual  worth. 
The  State  in  which  there  is  much  that  is  rotten  may 
vegetate  for  a  while  in  peace,  but  in  war  its  weaknesses 
are  revealed. 

Germany's  preparations  for  war  have  not  resulted 
in  economic  disaster,  but  in  unexampled  economic 
expansion,  unquestionably  because  of  our  demon- 
strated superiority  over  France.  It  is  better  to  spend 
money  on  armaments  and  battleships  than  luxury, 
motor  mania,  and  other  sensual  living. 

In  America  ex-President  Roosevelt  is  the  most 
distinguished  exponent  of  this  philosophy  of 
force.  In  The  Strenuous  Life,  written  after  his 
miUtary  experiences  in  the  Spanish -American  War 
had  greatly  modified  his  social  theories,  we  find 
many  echoes  of  this  philosophy,  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing will  serve  as  an  illustration : 

In  this  world  the  nation  that  has  trained  itself  to  a 
career  of  un warlike  and  isolated  ease  is  bound,  in  the 
end,  to  go  down  before  other  nations  which  have  not 
lost  the  manly  and  adventurous  qualities.^ 

These  quotations  could  be  multiplied  by  hun- 
dreds from  the  literature  of  aU  nations,  but  all  of 
^P.  6. 


Collective  Homicide  and  Progress    17 

them  repeat  the  same  idea  in  different  forms,  and 
enough  have  been  given  to  show  the  justification 
for  Novikov's  definition  of  the  distorted  "social 
Darwinism"  as  "the  doctrine  that  collective  homi- 
cide is  the  cause  of  human  progress."  Without 
war  the  world  would  still  be  inhabited  by  men 
seeking  a  shelter  in  caves,  and  the  great  societies 
of  nations  would  never  have  been  formed,  accord- 
ing to  Herbert  Spencer.  The  formation  of  a  State 
is  impossible  without  violence,  that  is  to  say  with- 
out war,  according  to  Mr.  Ratzenhofer.  Without 
war  humanity  would  never  have  learned  to  work, 
according  to  Professor  Ward,  and  the  system  of 
industrial  production  would  have  been  impossible. 
Without  war  no  great  art  would  have  been  possible 
according  to  Ruskin.  Without  war  the  virile 
qualities  would  decay;  the  moral  fibre  of  the 
nations  would  rot;  the  world  would  stagnate  and 
lose  itself  in  materialism,  according  to  Renan, 
von  Moltke,  and  Roosevelt.  Novikov  sums  up  the 
evidence  thus : 

The  idea  that  war  has  been  the  cause  of  the  progress 
of  our  species  is  almost  universal  in  the  minds  of  the 
great  public.  The  number  of  persons  who  do  not 
share  this  belief  is  very  limited  and  the  persons  who 
are  imbued  with  it  are  to  be  found  in  the  first  ranks 
of  the  social  hierarchy  and  among  those  who  have 
the  greatest  political  influence.  All  those  persons  who 
pretend  to  be  practical  and  realistic,  who  do  not  wish 
to  be  ridiculed  or  to  be  accused  of  being  idealists, 
affirm  categorically  that  homicide  serves  progress. 


1 8  The  Philosophy  of  Force 

The  philosophy  of  force  ^  has  been  admirably 
interpreted  by  Professor  WilUam  James"  in  the 
following  passage : 

The  war  party  is  assuredly  right  in  affirming  and 
re-affirming  that  the  martial  virtues,  although  origin- 
ally gained  by  the  race  through  war,  are  absolute  and 
permanent  human  goods.  Patriotic  pride  and  ambi- 
tion in  their  military  form  are,  after  all,  only  specifica- 
tions of  a  more  general  competitive  passion.  .  .  . 
Pacificism  makes  no  converts  from  the  military  party. 
The  military  party  denies  neither  the  bestiality,  nor 
the  horror,  nor  the  expense;  it  only  says  that  these 
things  tell  but  half  the  story.  It  only  says  that  war  is 
worth  them;  that,  taking  human  nature  as  a  whole, 
its  wars  are  its  best  protection  against  its  weaker  and 
more  cowardly  self,  and  that  mankind  cannot  afford 
to  adopt  a  peace  economy.  .  .  .  Militarism  is  the 
great  preserver  of  our  ideals  of  hardihood,  and  human 
life  with  no  use  for  hardihood  would  be  contemptible. 
.  .  .  This  natural  sort  of  feeling  forms,  I  think,  the 
innermost  soul  of  army-writings.    Without  any  excep- 

*  For  other  militaristic  expressions  of  the  philosophy  of  force 
see  Admiral  Mahan,  The  Place  of  Power  in  International  Relations, 
in  the  North  American  Review  for  January,  1912,  and  such  books 
as  Professor  Spenser  Wilkinson's  The  Great  Alternative,  Britain  at 
Bay,  War  and  Policy;  see  also  the  recent  work  of  an  American, 
General  Homer  Lea,  The  Valor  of  Ignorance,  with  its  introduction 
by  another  American  soldier,  General  John  J.  P.  Storey.  In 
German  see  S.  R.  Steinmetz,  Philosophie  des  Krieges;  Clauss 
Wagner,  Der  Krieg  ah  Schaffendes  Weltprinzip;  and  in  French, 
Colonel  Arthur  Boucher,  La  France  Victorieuse  dans  la  Guerre 
de  Demain,  and  M.  Keller,  La  Guerre  de  Demain. 

'  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War  (Am.  Assn.  for  International 
Conciliation,  February,  1910). 


War  a  Sociological  Necessity       19 

tion  known  to  me,  militarist  authors  take  a  highly 
mystical  view  of  their  subject,  and  regard  war  as  a 
biological  or  sociological  necessity.  .  .  .  Our  ances- 
tors have  bred  pugnacity  into  our  bone  and  marrow 
and  thousands  of  years  of  peace  won't  breed  it  out  of 
us. 

Despite  the  apparent  plausibility  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  force,  it  is  founded,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
upon  a  profound  misreading  of  the  biological 
analogy,  upon  a  deep-seated  misunderstanding  of 
the  facts  of  human  relationships,  and  upon  a  gross 
distortion  of  Darwin's  own  theory  of  social  pro- 
gress. In  spite  of  its  immense  success,  as  we  shall 
see  in  the  succeeding  chapters,  this  distorted 
"social  Darwinism"  is  nevertheless  completely 
false  in  theory.  It  contains  errors  so  numerous 
that  it  is  impossible  to  treat  them  all.  It  is 
necessary  to  make  a  selection  and  to  speak  solely 
of  the  most  important. 

When  we  discover  how  gross  are  the  errors  of 
this  distorted  "social  Darwinism"  we  are  compelled 
to  ask  with  astonishment  how  they  could  last  so 
long,  not  only  in  popular  belief,  but  even  among 
the  men  of  enlightenment.  The  only  reply  is  that 
the  favour  which  the  mystical  belief  which  is  called 
"  social  Darwinism  "  has  enjoyed,  shows  in  a  striking 
fashion  how  undeveloped  is  the  science  of  sociology 
and  how  formidable  is  the  power  of  ancient  routine 
nourished  by  a  traditionalist  spirit. 


CHAPTER  II 

CAUSES  OF  THE  SUCCESS  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF 
FORCE 

WHAT  are  the  causes  of  the  success  of  the 
philosophy  of  force,  and  how  did  the  dis- 
torted form  of  "social  Darwinism, "which  it  claims 
for  its  scientific  foundation,  gain  its  almost  uni- 
versal acceptance? 

In  seeking  the  answer  to  this  question  we  shall 
come  upon  a  surprising  series  of  facts. 

We  shall  discover  that  the  doctrine  known  as 
"social  Darwinism,"  which  finds  the  cause  of 
social  progress  in  war,  universal  competition,  and 
the  rdle  of  struggle  and  force  in  human  relations, 
was  not  created  by  Darwin;  but  that  he  based 
his  whole  theory  of  social  progress  on  the  moral 
law  and  the  social  instincts. 

We  shall  find  that  this  doctrine  was  repudiated 
in  its  application  as  a  law  of  human  society  by  the 
co-discoverer  of  the  theory  of  evolution,  Wallace; 
and  by  Darwin's  intimate  friend  and  chief  disciple, 
Huxley. 

We  shall  find  that  the  misapplication  of  Dar- 
win's biological  theory  to  human  society,  which  is 

20 


Universality  of  its  Appeal  21 

current  in  the  modem  world,  did  not  emerge  as  the 
result  of  the  thorough  discussion  of  a  subject 
which  recent  events  have  shown  to  be  one  of  the 
most  important  questions  in  applied  social  science 
— that  is,  the  place  of  struggle  and  force  as  a  factor 
in  human  associations.  On  the  contrary,  it  grew 
up  almost  unnoticed,  and  as  an  unconscious  by- 
product of  a  debate  between  some  of  the  greatest 
minds  of  the  age,  over  an  entirely  irrelevant,  and, 
as  the  modern  world  has  largely  come  to  regard 
it,  a  socially  unimportant  subject — the  theologi- 
cal implications  of  the  Darwinian  theory  as  they 
shaped  themselves  in  the  warfare  between  science 
and  traditional  theology  around  the  issue  of  evolu- 
tion vs.  special  creation.  Instead  of  subjecting  it  to 
the  searching  analysis  demanded  by  its  practical 
social  importance,  the  intellectual  world  and 
public  opinion  has  accepted  "social  Darwinism" 
uncritically  and  by  almost  unanimous  consent  as 
an  integral  part  of  the  theory  of  evolution. 

The  causes  of  this  almost  miraculous  success 
are  to  be  found  largely  in  three  factors:  (i)  the 
universality  of  the  appeal  which  "social  Dar- 
winism" makes  to  the  human  spirit,  enhsting 
both  the  highest  aspirations  toward  perfection 
and  justice  and  the  lowest  instinct  of  selfish  greed 
and  brute  force;  (2)  the  intellectual  environment 
in  which  the  social  applications  of  the  theory  of 
evolution  were  developed,  and  (3)  the  influence 
of  historical  events,  especially  the  Franco-Prus- 
sian war,  and  the  rapid  growth  of  Imperialism 


22  Causes  of  its  Success 

among   all  the  Western   civilized   Powers  since 
1870. 

The  universality  of  the  appeal  made  by  the 
evolutionary  ethics  of  the  philosophy  of  force,  has 
been  pointed  out  by  an  historian  of  modem 
political  thought,  as  follows: 

Darwinism  has  been  pressed  into  political  service  by 
very  different  parties.  Militarists  have  appealed  to 
the  ideas  of  struggle  for  existence  and  selection  of  the 
fittest,  in  order  to  justify  the  selective  agency  of  war. 
Individualists  have  appealed  to  the  same  ideas  in 
order  to  find  justification  for  an  internal  policy  of 
laissez-faire,  which  shall  not  interfere  with  the  selec- 
tive activity  of  the  "beneficent  struggle."  It  is  in 
truth  an  easy  procedure  to  steal  Darwin's  theory  of 
the  natural  world,  and  to  apply  it,  without  remember- 
ing mutare  mutanda,  to  the  spiritual  world  of  human 
relations.  It  is  easy  to  argue  * '  Nature  sets  her  children 
to  compete;  let  the  State  set  its  citizens  to  do  the 
like:  Nature  recognizes  the  strongest  species  as 
the  right  species ;  let  the  human  world  recognize  the 
strongest  nation  as  the  right  nation."^ 

But  the  breadth  of  its  appeal  is  not  limited  to  the 
militarist  and  the  individualist,  widely  as  these  are 
separated.  Its  appeal  is  to  the  free-thinker,  the 
positivist,  and  the  monist  on  the  one  hand,  and  to 
the  mystic,  the  idealist,  and  the  dualist  on  the 
other.  It  satisfies  not  only  the  conservatives,  who 
rely  wholly  on  brute  force,  but  also  the  liberals, 

'Ernest  Barker,  Political  Thought  in  England  from  Herbert 
Spencer  to  the  Present  Day,  1915;  p.  146. 


Darwin's  Epoch-Making  Discovery    23 

who  are  devoted  to  the  idea  of  justice.  Since  its 
doctrines  were  acceptable  to  natures  having  the 
most  diametrically  opposite  aspirations,  we  can 
understand  one  of  the  reasons,  at  least,  why  the 
distorted  "social  Darwinism"  had  such  an  enor- 
mous and  rapid  success.  It  is  interesting  to  trace 
the  influence  of  these  two  groups  upon  the  success 
of  the  philosophy  of  force,  and  to  try  and  under- 
stand the  peculiar  appeal  which  it  made  to  each. 

The  favour  of  the  most  enlightened  and  most 
liberal  spirits  of  the  time  was  assured  to  the 
philosophy  of  force,  partly  because  of  its  associa- 
tion with  the  triumph  of  true  Darwinism. 

The  first  day  of  July,  1858,  marks  the  division 
between  two  epochs  of  human  thought ;  for  on  this 
day  two  papers,  one  presented  by  Charles  Darwin, 
and  the  other  by  Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  were 
read  before  the  Linnasan  Society  at  London,  and 
with  the  reading  of  these  papers,  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  by  natural  selection  was  bom.  On 
November  twenty-fourth  of  the  following  year, 
Darwin  published  the  first  instalment  of  his 
thought  in  its  fuller  development, — his  book  on 
The  Origin  of  Species  by  Means  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion. This  was  the  fruit  of  thirty  years  of  work 
and  thought  by  a  worker  and  thinker  of  genius, 
and  it  at  once  commanded  the  world's  attention  by 
the  transparent  honesty  and  judicial  fairness  with 
which  it  presented  its  wealth  of  facts,  gathered 
from  a  world-wide  observation;  compared  with 
almost  infinite  patience;  and  woven  into  a  theory 


24  Causes  of  its  Success 

which  revealed  one  of  the  great  unifying  principles 
of  the  cosmic  order. 

Darwin  had  found  one  of  the  great  secrets  at 
the  heart  of  the  evolutionary  process  for  which  a 
long  line  of  investigators  from  the  days  of  Aristotle 
had  sought  in  vain, — the  thin  red  line  which  was 
to  guide  him,  and  after  him  all  workers  in  the 
natural  sciences,  through  the  labyrinth  of  the 
infinite  variety  of  the  facts  of  Nature.  The  work 
undoubtedly  marks  one  of  the  most  important 
events  in  the  history  of  the  human  race.  Not 
only  was  it  epoch-making  because  with  its  publica- 
tion Nature  re-entered  upon  a  grand  and  magnifi- 
cent unity.  It  was  important,  too,  because  it 
marked  the  enfranchisement  of  the  human  spirit 
from  a  mediaeval  theology,  from  outworn  tradi- 
tions, from  ancient  routines,  atid  the  ignorance  and 
superstitions  of  a  barbarous  past.  Man  raised  his 
head;  he  felt  himself  master  of  the  world;  he  saw 
infinite  horizons  opening  before  his  eyes,  with  no 
authority  which  henceforth  could  arrest  him  in  his 
conquest.  We  can  understand  with  what  enthu- 
siasm this  definite  liberation  of  the  human  mind 
would  be  received  by  the  thinkers  of  a  purely 
scientific  spirit. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  exaggerate  the  changes 
which  have  come  about  in  all  departments  of 
human  thought,  as  the  result  of  the  theory  of 
natural  selection.  During  the  past  half  century, 
all  the  sciences,  from  astronomy  to  sociology,  have 
been  profoundly  influenced  by  Darwin's  discovery 


Application  to  Human  Society      25 

of  evolution.  In  historical  and  in  political  think- 
ing especially,  the  philosophy  of  force  was  greatly 
strengthened  by  the  discovery  of  such  apparently 
scientific  foundations. 

In  The  Origin  of  Species,  Darwin  did  not  apply 
his  theory  to  human  relationships,  but  confined 
himself  to  the  field  of  biology.  The  only  reference 
which  he  makes  to  man  is  a^  the  end  of  the  book, 
where  he  says  that  in  the  future  "much  light  will 
be  thrown  on  the  origin  of  man  and  his  history." 
Darwin's  theory  of  social  progress  is  contained  in 
The  Descent  of  Man,  which  was  not  published  until 
twelve  years  later.  During  these  twelve  years 
Darwin  was  patiently  at  work  on  the  application 
of  his  theory  to  human  society,  and  as  early  as 
1864  he  wrote  to  A.  R.  Wallace: 

The  great  leading  idea  is  quite  new  to  me  viz.,  that 
during  late  ages,  the  mind  will  have  been  modified 
more  than  the  body;  yet  I  had  got  as  far  as  to  see  with 
you  that  the  struggle  between  the  races  of  man  de- 
pended entirely  upon  intellectual  and  moral  qualities.  ^ 

But  the  followers,  and  especially  the  popular- 
izers  of  Darwin's  theory  could  not  wait  for  his 
own  application  of  the  theory  of  natural  selection 
to  social  progress.  The  publication  of  The  Origin 
of  Species  had  acted  as  a  great  liberalizing  in- 
fluence upon  the  minds  of  men,  and  the  flood  of 
new  thought  pouring  over  the  world  stimulated 
and  nourished  research  and  reasoning  in  every 

X  Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  vol.  iii.,  p.  89. 


26  Causes  of  its  Success 

land.  Edition  after  edition  of  the  book  was  called 
for  and  it  was  translated  even  into  Japanese  and 
Hindustani.  A  vast  army  of  young  men  took  up 
every  line  of  investigation,  and  epoch-making 
books  appeared  in  all  the  great  nations.  Spencer, 
Wallace,  Huxley,  Galton,  Tyndall,  Tylor,  Lubbock, 
Bagehot,  Lewes,  in  England,  and  groups  of  strong 
men  in  Germany,  Italy,  France,  and  America, 
published  important  works  in  every  department  of 
biology.  Under  these  conditions  it  was  inevitable 
that  Darwin's  theory  should  be  applied  to  man. 

In  order  to  trace  the  distortion  which  Darwin's 
theories  suffered  in  this  application  to  human 
society,  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the  intellec- 
tual world  into  which  they  were  bom,  and  the 
philosophical  doctrines  current  in  the  aristocratic 
intellectual  circles  in  which  they  were  discussed 
and  developed. 

On  the  one  hand  can  be  traced  the  influence  of 
teachers  like  Carlyle,  Kingsley,  and  Ruskin,  who 
have  done  so  much  to  foster  the  belief  in  a  "divine 
right"  of  force.  Ruskin 's  view  of  the  value  of  war 
for  civilization  and  art  we  have  already  noticed. 
Charles  Kingsley  had  defended  the  Crimean  War 
as  "a  just  war  against  tyrants  and  oppressors," 
and  had  eloquently  advocated  such  a  war  as  in 
accord  with  the  highest  teachings  of  Christianity 
and  the  Bible.  The  direction  of  Carlyle's  political 
teachings,  which  were  in  accord  with  his  hero 
worship  and  "will  to  power"  philosophy,  may  be 
judged  from  the  following  summary : 


A  Philosophy  of  Aristocracy        2^] 

Carlyle  condemned  democracy,  which  he  identified 
with  laissez-faire,  as  "a  self -cancelling  business,"  a 
government  which  only  achieved  the  negation  of  any 
government.  Representative  institutions,  a  free  and 
broad  electorate,  in  a  word  all  the  paraphernalia  of 
democracy,  were  in  his  eyes  a  matter  of  mere  palaver 
and  ballot  boxes — "nothing  except  emptiness"  and 
zero.  To  get  governance,  men  must  turn  to  those  who 
are  able  to  govern,  the  silent  few,  standing  aloof  and 
alone  in  their  wisdom,  who  are  nature's  appointed 
Hero-Kings.  .  .  .  Wise,  and  in  their  wisdom  also 
virtuous,  they  must  guide  and  even  drill  their  lesser 
fellows,  who  shall  find  in  obedience  their  chief  end  and 
highest  pleasure. 

.  .  .  Guidance,  regulation,  drill  became  his  ideals: 
military  metaphors  recur  in  his  writings.  He  even 
advanced  to  the  military  doctrine  that  might  is  the 
measure  of  right.  If  a  man  be  able,  wise  of  heart, 
strong  of  will,  firm  in  his  resolution  to  do  his  duty 
among  his  fellows,  he  must  govern  according  to  the 
measure  of  his  strength,  and  his  right  over  his  fellows 
is  according  to  his  might.  "The  strong  thing  is  the 
just  thing" :  rights  are  "correctly  articulated  mights."^ 

To  men  holding  this  philosophy,  "social  Dar- 
winism" made  an  especially  strong  appeal;  it 
proclaimed  the  idea  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest; 
it  strengthened  their  faith  in  the  triumph  of  the 
best;  it  affirmed  that  Nature  practices  an  incor- 
ruptible justice, — that  the  idea  of  justice  is  found 
even  in  the  biological  realm.    Thus  the  philosophy 

'  Ernest  Barker,  Political  Thought  in  England  from  Herbert 
Spencer  to  the  Present  Day,  p.  184. 


28  Causes  of  its  Success 

of  force  enlisted  in  its  service  the  highest  aspira- 
tions of  the  human  soul,  man's  passionate  desire 
for  justice  and  perfection.  "Man  has  an  inex- 
tinguishable thirst  for  justice,"  says  Novikov; 
"it  could  not  be  otherwise,  because  justice  is  life; 
injustice  death." 

On  the  other  hand,  Darwin's  biological  theories 
were  applied  to  human  society  in  an  intellectual 
world  dominated  by  individualistic  scientists  like 
Spencer  and  by  conservative  lawyers  like  Sir 
Henry  Maine. 

One  of  the  chief  influences  in  the  rise  of  the 
philosophy  of  force  was  the  contribution  of  Spen- 
cer's social  philosophy.  As  early  as  1 851  we  find 
him  recognizing,  in  Social  Statics,  the 

stern  discipline  of  nature  which  eliminates  the  unfit 
and  results  in  the  maintenance  of  a  constitution  com- 
pletely adapted  to  the  surrounding  conditions. 

And  we  find  a  prophecy  of  the  modern  "social 
Darwinism"  in  the  fact  that  Spencer  attacked  the 
system  of  poor  relief  in  the  name  of  this  discipline. 
Spencer  never  became  a  Darwinian.  The  first 
draft  of  his  Synthetic  Philosophy  was  made  in  the 
beginning  of  1858,  a  few  months  before  Darwin 
published  his  first  paper,  and  no  essential  change 
was  made  on  account  of  the  pubHcation  of  the 
Darwinian  theory.  Whenever  biological  principles 
were  needed  for  his  sociology,  Spencer  adapted  to 
his  system  the  principles  which  had  been  suggested 
by  Lamarck  as  early  as  1800.    Lamarck  had  held, 


Influence  of  Spencer  29 

(i)  that  external  environment  acts  on  living  beings 
(in  adapting  this  principle,  Spencer  was  xin- 
doubtedly  much  fortified  by  Buckle's  History  oj 
Civilization,  which  was  published  in  1856);  (2) 
that  living  beings  adapt  their  structures  and 
functions  to  the  external  environment,  and  (3) 
that  such  acquired  characteristics  are  inherited  (a 
belief  on  the  basis  of  which  Maine  and  others 
defended  the  hereditary  principle  of  the  House  of 
Lords) .  Darwin,  on  the  other  hand,  did  not  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  purposive  adaptation  to  environ- 
ment, but  he  did  believe  in  accidental  variations, 
and  that  those  accidental  variations  which  suited 
the  environment  were  perpetuated  by  inheritance. 
Nevertheless,  Spencer's  sociological  theory,  based 
on  struggle,  became  incorporated  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  popular  understanding  of  the  theory  of 
evolution.  There  is  even  some  justification  for  the 
view  that  Spencer  was  more  responsible  than 
Darwin  himself  for  the  "social  Darwinism"  which 
has  come  to  represent  the  Darwinian  theory  in 
public  opinion  ever  since.  It  is  largely  through 
Spencer's  contributions  that  the  extreme  individ- 
ualism of  an  age  chiefly  under  the  influence  of 
Adam  Smith  and  Bentham,  and  in  revolt  against 
governmental  interference  in  economic  affairs, 
fell  into  "social  Darwinism."  This  strong  ten- 
dency toward  the  laissez-faire  doctrine  which  was 
dominant  in  the  aristocratic  intellectual  atmos- 
phere in  which  Spencer  wrote,  was  reinforced  by 
Spencer's  strong  abhorrence  to  actual  government 


30  Causes  of  its  Success 

and  its  ways,  a  feeling  which  Spencer  says  he 
brought  from  his  "dissenting  family,  antagonistic 
to  arbitrary  control."  Thus  Spencer's  philosophy 
(and  with  it  the  philosophy  of  force),  instead  of 
being  established  on  a  scientific  basis,  had  a  strong 
bias  of  a  priori  conceptions  of  individual  rights  and 
laissez-faire  doctrines  from  the  beginning.  As 
Barker  says: 

He  did  not  really  approach  politics  through  science, 
without  preconceptions  drawn  from  other  sources, 
and  with  the  sole  idea  of  eliciting  the  political  lessons 
which  science  might  teach;  on  the  contrary,  he  was 
already  charged  with  political  preconceptions  when  he 
approached  science,  and  he  sought  to  find  in  science 
examples  or  analogies  to  point  a  moral  already  drawn 
and  adorn  a  tale  whose  plot  was  already  sketched.^ 

As  Spencer  and  the  sociologists  brought  to  the 
philosophy  of  force  at  the  same  time  a  distortion 
and  a  reinforcement  through  their  interpretation 
in  social  and  biological  terms  of  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  so  Sir  Henry  Maine  and  the  lawyers  brought 
to  the  philosophy  of  force  distortion  and  reinforce- 
ment from  the  side  of  political  theory. 

Maine's  Ancient  Law  was  published  in  1861,  two 
years  after  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species.  In  this 
work  Maine  popularized  Savigny's  conception  of 
law  as  a  continuous  historical  development,  and  the 
connection  between  this  theory  and  the  doctrine 

'  Political  Thought  in  England  from  Herbert  Spencer  to  the 
Present  Day,  p.  85. 


Spencer's  Political  Prejudices       31 

of  evolution  is  clear.  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  has 
expressed  the  connection  thus :  "If  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  is  nothing  else  than  the  historical  method 
applied  to  the  facts  of  nature,  the  historical  method 
is  nothing  else  than  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
applied  to  hiiman  institutions." 

The  final  outcome  of  this  historical  method 
as  embodied  in  Maine's  Popular  Government,  pub- 
lished in  1884,  in  which  he  aims  a  blow  at  the 
foimdations  of  the  Benthamite  faith  in  democracy, 
is  a  somewhat  melancholy  conservatism.  We  find 
a  significant  foreshadowing  of  the  Nietzschean  and 
other  "will  to  power"  philosophies  in  this  book, 
in  which  Maine  defends  aristocracy  and  the  English 
House  of  Lords,  and  makes  it  a  part  of  his  indict- 
ment of  democracy  that  the  multitude  evidently 
dislikes  the  doctrine  of  the  struggle  for  existence, 
to  which  he  refers  as 

that  beneficent  private  war  which  makes  one  man 
strive  to  climb  on  the  shoulders  of  another  and  remain 
there  through  the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest. 

Such  was  the  intellectual  atmosphere  in  which 
Darwin's  biological  theory  was  applied  to  human 
society.  The  process  of  distortion  which  occurred 
in  this  application  has  been  traced  by  Kropotkin 
(who  has  been  called  the  only  true  Darwinian  in 
England),  as  follows: 

It  happened  with  Darwin's  theory  as  it  always 
happens    with    theories    having    any    bearing    upon 


32  Causes  of  its  Success 

human  relations.  Instead  of  widening  it  according  to 
his  own  hints,  his  followers  narrowed  it  still  more. 
And  while  Herbert  Spencer,  starting  on  independent 
but  closely  allied  lines,  attempted  to  widen  the  inquiry 
into  that  great  question,  "Who  are  the  fittest?" 
especially  in  the  appendix  to  the  third  edition  of  the 
Data  of  Ethics,  the  numberless  followers  of  Darwin 
reduced  the  notion  of  struggle  for  existence  to  its 
narrowest  limits.  They  came  to  conceive  the  animal 
world  as  a  world  of  perpetual  struggle  among  half- 
starved  individuals,  thirsting  for  one  another's  blood. 
They  made  modern  literature  resound  with  the  war- 
cry  of  ''Woe  to  the  vanquished"  as  if  it  were  the  last 
word  of  modern  biology.  They  raised  the  "pitiless" 
struggle  for  personal  advantages  to  the  height  of  a 
biological  principle  which  man  must  submit  to  as  well, 
under  the  menace  of  otherwise  succumbing  in  a  world 
based  upon  mutual  extermination.  Leaving  aside  the 
economists  who  know  of  natural  science  but  a  few 
words  borrowed  from  second-hand  vulgarizers,  we 
must  recognize  that  even  the  most  authorized  expo- 
nents of  Darwin's  views  did  their  best  to  maintain 
those  false  ideas.  ^ 

Even  Huxley,  who  was  one  of  the  most  powerful 
protagonists  of  Darwin  in  the  battle  which  raged 
between  science  and  traditional  theology,  and  who 
is  considered  to  be  one  of  the  ablest  exponents  of 
the  theory  of  evolution,  has  been  quoted  in  support 
of  the  philosophy  of  force,  by  those  who  assume 
that  definite  biological  analogies  can  be  applied 
to   human   society.     Thus  in   his   essay  on    The 

'  Kropotkin,  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  p.  3. 


Distortion  by  Darwin's  Followers    33 

Struggle   for    Existence    in    Human    Society    he 
wrote : 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  moralist  the  animal 
world  is  on  about  the  same  level  as  a  gladiator's  show. 
The  creatures  are  fairly  well  treated,  and  set  to  fight — 
whereby  the  strongest,  the  swiftest,  and  the  cunning- 
est  live  to  fight  another  day.  The  spectator  has  no 
need  to  turn  his  thumb  down,  as  no  quarter  is  given. 

And  as  among  animals  so  among  primitive  men : 

.  .  .  the  weakest  and  stupidest  went  to  the  wall, 
while  the  toughest  and  shrewdest,  those  who  were 
best  fitted  to  cope  with  their  circumstances,  but 
not  the  best  in  another  sense,  survived.  Life  was  a 
continual  free  fight,  and  beyond  the  limited  and 
temporary  relations  of  the  family,  the  Hobbesian 
war  of  each  against  all  was  the  normal  state  of 
existence.^ 

But  when  he  begins  to  apply  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion to  human  relations,  Huxley  turns  away  from 
the  idea  of  mutual  struggle  and  shows  that  a  new 
set  of  factors  enter  into  play.  Thus  in  the  same 
essay  he  says : 

.  .  .  society  differs  from  nature  in  having  a  definite 
moral  object;  whence  it  comes  about  that  the  course 
shaped  by  the  ethical  man — the  member  of  society 
or  citizen — necessarily  runs  counter  to  that  which 
the  non-ethical  man — the  primitive  savage,  or  man 
as  a  mere  member  of  the  animal  kingdom — tends  to 

'  Huxley,  Evolution  and  Ethics,  pp.  199,  204. 
3 


34  Causes  of  its  Success 

adopt.  The  latter  fights  out  the  struggle  for  existence 
to  the  bitter  end,  like  any  other  animal;  the  former 
devotes  his  best  energies  to  the  object  of  setting 
limits  to  the  struggle.^ 

But  Huxley's  emphasis  upon  the  ethical  factors 
in  human  society,  like  Darwin's  own  theory  of 
social  progress,  was  entirely  neglected  by  those 
who  found  in  natural  selection  the  justification  for 
the  philosophy  of  force.  The  tide  of  opinion  in 
favour  of  the  distorted  "social  Darwinism"  had 
set  in  so  strongly  that  attention  was  paid  only  to 
those  parts  which  were  favourable  to  this  doctrine 
— parts  which  rest  upon  errors  due,  as  Kropotkin 
and  Novikov  have  since  shown,  to  a  one-sided 
misreading  of  the  biological  struggle  and  a  mis- 
conception of  the  primitive  life  of  man. 

On  the  one  hand,  then,  we  have  as  one  of  the 
causes  of  its  success,  the  appeal  which  the  new 
doctrine  made  to  some  of  the  most  enlightened 
spirits  of  the  age.  On  the  other  hand,  there  came 
to  it  the  support  of  an  entirely  different  group  of 
men,  because  the  philosophy  of  force  responded  to 
the  archaic  instincts  of  brutality  so  deeply  em- 
bedded in  the  nature  of  the  traditionalist,  the 
routinist,  and  the  ignorant,  who  still  form,  un- 
fortunately so  large  a  proportion  of  the  human 
race.  After  the  Darwinian  theory  had  been 
announced,  Marshal  von  Moltke  could  write  with 
a    semblance    of    scientific    authority    that    war 

'  Huxley,  Evolution  and  Ethics,  p.  203. 


Justification  for  Brutal  Instincts     35 

"conforms  to  the  order  of  things  established  by- 
God,"  because  the  "order  estabHshed  by  God" 
corresponds  perfectly  to  the  "law  of  nature"  of 
which  the  sociologists  and  the  "social  Darwinians" 
made  use. 

Although  it  has  received  renewed  popularity 
from  the  immense  success  of  Darwin's  work,  this 
brutal  aspect  of  the  philosophy  of  force  is  of  course 
much  older  than  Darwin.  Its  roots  go  back  to  the 
sixth  century  before  our  era,  when  the  famous 
Greek  philosopher,  Heraclitus  of  Ephesus,  gave 
the  philosophy  of  force  a  classic  expression  in  the 
famous  dictum  "war  is  the  father  of  all  things," — 
xoXejxoi;  xaxiQp  xdvxwv. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
Machiavelli  (1469-1527)  based  his  science  of 
statesmanship  upon  the  philosophy  of  force,  which 
he  found  dominant  among  the  aristocratic  ruling 
classes  of  his  time,  and  in  The  Prince  laid  down 
rules  which  have  affected  the  orthodox  diplomacy 
of  the  European  nations  ever  since.  Machiavelli 
was  seeking  a  remedy  for  the  discord  and  anarchy 
of  Italy,  and  he  found  it  in  the  tyranny  of  Cesare 
Borgia,  imposing  his  despotic  will  without  regard 
to  moral  scruples.  Machiavelli  holds  that  the 
State  is  essentially  non-moral,  and  in  this  view 
we  find  a  significant  foreshadowing  of  a  theory 
which  has  not  entirely  disappeared  from  the 
modem  world.  Any  crime  may  be  committed 
in  its  name,  he  contends.  The  State  knows  no 
law   higher   than   necessity.      Since    mankind    is 


36  Causes  of  its  Success 

totally  depraved,  it  must  be  beaten  into  order  by 
any  means,  and  the  only  effective  instrument  is  an 
unlimited  will.  There  is  no  authority  above  the 
Sovereign  to  impose  rules  of  action  upon  him.  He 
may  find  religion  and  morality  useful  instruments, 
but  for  him  they  are  only  agencies,  not  authori- 
ties. Everything  must  be  sacrificed  to  the  unity, 
strength,  and  growth  of  the  State.  ^ 

The  period  of  deep  unrest,  conspiracy,  and 
private  warfare  of  the  latter  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  culminating  in  the  horrors  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew's Day  evoked  another  great  book,  De  la 
Repuhlique  by  Jean  Bodin  (i  530-1 596),  which  has 
since  held  its  place,  as  the  foundation  of  nearly  all 
subsequent  political  thought,  with  Machiavelli's 
The  Prince.  Bodin  did  not  consider  it  sufficient 
merely  to  analyse  the  existing  institution  of 
monarchy,  as  Machiavelli  had  done ;  he  considered 
that  an  abstract  theory  of  the  State  must  be 
created,  founded  on  axioms  of  reason,  which  could 
serve  as  a  new  foundation  for  the  monarch's 
throne,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  the  anarchy  of  the 
Wars  of  Religion.  Bodin  found  the  comer-stone 
for  this  theory  of  the  State  in  the  conception  of 
"sovereignty"  which  he  describes  as  being  "ab- 
solute, indivisible,  inalienable."  Since  it  is  absolute 
it  admits  of  no  limitation;  since  it  is  indivisible, 
it  cannot  be  shared  or  partitioned;  since  it  is 

'  See  II  Principe,  Burd's  edition,  Oxford,  1891,  and  also  the 
admirable  discussion  of  Machiavelli's  doctrines  in  Villari,  The 
Life  and  Times  of  Machiavelli,  London,  1898,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  89,  184. 


Machiavelli,  Bodin,  and  Hobbes     37 

inalienable,  it  cannot  be  lost  or  taken  away.  This 
conception  of  sovereignty,  which  has  proved  to 
be  the  most  serious  theoretical  obstacle  to  the 
organization  of  the  world  under  a  system  of  justice, 
lent  itself  directly  to  the  distortion  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  force.  Bodin's  conception  of  the  State 
places  it  in  the  category  of  Might,  and  not  in  the 
category  of  Right.  If  the  State  is  absolute,  has 
no  superior,  and  is  subject  to  no  law,  there  must 
remain  forever  as  many  ungovemed,  ungovern- 
able, and  purely  arbitrary  entities  as  there  are 
sovereign  States,  thus  ensuring  perpetual  anarchy 
in  the  realm  of  international  relations. 

This  idea  of  the  State  was  developed  further 
by  Thomas  Hobbes  (i 588-1679).  His  contribu- 
tions form  so  important  a  part  of  the  modem 
philosophy  of  force  that  it  is  worth  while  to  ex- 
amine them  in  some  detail.  Hobbes,  like  Machia- 
velli and  Bodin,  was  greatly  influenced  by  the 
conditions  of  the  time  in  which  he  wrote  and  drew 
from  the  Thirty  Years'  War  the  picture  of  nations 
living  "in  a  condition  of  perpetual  war  and  upon 
the  confines  of  battle,"  as  representing  the  per- 
manent reality  with  which  the  statesman  and  the 
political  philosopher  have  to  deal. 

Hobbes,  who  was  strongly  in  sympathy  with 
the  aristocratic  ruling  class  of  the  Royalists, 
deduced  his  social  philosophy  from  an  imaginary 
man,  whom  he  assumes  to  be  naturally  self-seeking, 
egotistic,  and  nothing  more.  In  a  state  of  nature, 
where    selfish    characteristics    rule    unrestrained, 


38  Causes  of  its  Success 

according  to  Hobbes,  the  result  must  be  a  continu- 
ous warfare  in  which  every  man's  hand  is  raised 
against  his  neighbour.  Hobbes  is  a  reaHst  to  the 
core,  and  declares  in  his  pitiless  frankness  that 
the  life  of  man,  while  he  continues  to  live  in  a 
state  of  nature,  will  doubtless  always  be  "solitary, 
poor,  nasty,  brutish,  and  short,"  but  nevertheless, 
he  says,  "this  is  his  natural  condition."  In  his 
Leviathan  he  points  to  the  facts  as  he  sees  them : 

In  all  places,  where  men  have  lived  by  small  families, 
to  rob  and  spoil  one  another  has  been  a  trade,  and  so 
far  from  being  reputed  against  the  Law  of  Nature, 
the  greater  spoils  they  gained,  the  greater  was  their 
honour. 

And  he  applies  his  realistic  social  theory  to  the 
State  with  logical  consistency: 

As  small  families  did  then,  so  now  do  cities  and 
kingdoms,  which  are  greater  families,  for  their  own 
security,  enlarge  their  dominion  upon  all  pretences  of 
danger  and  fear  of  invasion  .  .  .  endeavoiiring,  as 
much  as  they  can,  to  subdue  by  open  force  or  secret 
arts,  for  want  of  other  caution,  justly;  and  are  re- 
membered for  it  in  after  years  with  honour.  ^ 

Thus  war,  from  being  universal  and  perpetual  in 
a  "state  of  nature,"  is  suppressed  within  the  State 
for  the  benefit  of  its  subjects,  but  will  continue 
its  course  naturally,  and,  as  Hobbes  does  not 
hesitate  to  say,  quite  "justly,"  between  States, 

^Hobbes,  Leviathan  (1651),  chapters  xiii.  and  xvii. 


Basis  of  International  Anarchy      39 

which  have  no  "  compact "  with  a  superior  power  to 
preserve  them  from  its  evils.  The  State  being  in 
its  essence  merely  a  mutual  benefit  association, 
according  to  this  theory,  the  subject  is  best  served 
by  the  success  of  the  State  as  a  predatory  enter- 
prise by  which  others  are  despoiled.  Law  and 
order,  therefore,  end  with  the  particular  State, 
according  to  Hobbes,  and  internationally,  since 
society  is  founded  upon  "interests"  and  not  upon 
"rights,"  war  will  continue  indefinitely,  because 
there  is  no  way  of  stopping  it,  and  that  nation  will 
be  the  best  off,  which,  being  the  strongest-,  can 
most  despoil  the  rest. 

The  dominance  of  the  teachings  of  Machiavelli, 
Bodin,  and  Hobbes  in  the  aristocratic  intellectual 
circles  and  among  the  ruling  classes  of  all  countries 
in  Darwin's  time  contributed  greatly  to  the  success 
of  the  distorted  application  of  his  theory  to  human 
society.  The  new  "social  Darwinism"  was  seized 
upon  with  enthusiasm  by  all  the  men  of  violence 
because  it  permitted  them  to  raise  the  basest  in- 
stincts of  greed  and  vandalism  to  the  height  of  a 
universal  law  of  nature.  Since  the  feeblest  must 
perish  necessarily  in  the  battle  for  existence,  since 
this  is  the  immutable  principle  of  the  living  world, 
then  the  vae  victis  was  of  all  that  one  could  imagine 
the  most  rational  and  most  legitimate  course. 

We  can  imagine  the  effect  which  this  distorted 
social  Darwinism  would  have  upon  a  man  of 
power  like  Bismarck.  H.  Lichtenberger,  analysing 
his  character,  says: 


40  Causes  of  its  Success 

Bismarck  had  in  a  rare  degree  the  love  of  force,  the 

joy  of  exercising  and  expanding  his  power  and  that 
of  his  people.  He  constantly  put  into  practice  this 
"agonistic"  conception  of  existence  without  remorse 
and  without  scruple,  without  pity  for  the  feeble,  and 
without  generosity  for  the  vanquished.  ^ 

Men  of  Bismarck's  type  found  in  the  new  doc- 
trines complete  justification  for  their  tendencies, 
a  kind  of  superior  sanction  for  a  policy  of  blood  and 
iron.  Political  theory  in  all  Europe  was  based 
on  the  new  "social  Darwinism,"  and  it  was  pro- 
claimed that  might  always  makes  right.  Bis- 
marck was  the  leader  of  the  school  in  Germany ;  in 
England,  Chamberlain;  in  the  United  States  and 
elsewhere  the  Imperialists  proclaimed  with  the 
Iron  Chancellor  that  force  alone  is  noble,  beautiful, 
and  respectable.  Banditism  was  raised  upon  a 
superb  pedestal  by  the  sovereigns,  the  ministers, 
and  the  statesmen  with  the  instinct  of  conquest. 

The  historical  events  of  the  second  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century  contributed  greatly  to  the 
spread  of  the  philosophy  of  force  as  a  theory  of 
international  relations.  Novikov^  has  traced  with 
fine  insight  the  way  in  which  the  idea  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  and  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  was  applied  to  nations  under  the  influence  of 
these  historical  events. 

The  development  of  the  Darwinian  ideas  had 
been  especially  marked  in  Germany,  where  the 

'  VAllemagne  moderne  et  son  evolution.     Paris,  1907,  p.  I13. 
*  La  Critique  du  Darwinisme  social,  pp.  12-15. 


Influence  of  Historical  Events      41 

first  edition  of  The  Origin  oj  Species  was  published 
in  i860.  As  early  as  1861,  Darwin  wrote,  "my 
book  seems  to  be  exciting  much  attention  in 
Germany,  judging  from  the  number  of  discussions 
sent  me,  "  and  his  son,  Francis  Darwin,  writes,  "in 
a  few  years  the  voice  of  German  science  was  to 
become  one  of  the  strongest  of  the  advocates  of 
evolution.  ^ 

In  the  midst  of  all  this  discussion  came  the  war 
of  1870,  exerting  a  profound  influence  in  populariz- 
ing the  theory  of  "social  Darwinism"  as  the 
arbiter  of  national  destiny.  It  is  easy  to  under- 
stand the  effect  of  the  war  upon  the  victorious 
Prussians,  and  through  them  upon  a  large  part  of 
the  German  people,  for  Prussia  had  now  gained  the 
leadership  in  the  newly-formed  German  Empire. 

Intoxicated  by  their  brilliant  victories,  they 
were  easily  converted  to  the  adoration  of  brute 
force.  They  proclaimed  on  high  that  it  took 
precedence  of  law.  They  found  it  entirely  natural 
that  it  menaced  the  world.  They  claimed  that  the 
vanquished  had  no  right  to  protest,  that  they  ought 
simply  to  submit  to  their  fate.  All  the  benefits 
which  came  from  the  unity  of  the  German  states 
were  ascribed  to  the  victorious  war.  The  great 
expansion  of  economic  life,  following  the  transi- 
tion from  an  agricultural  to  a  predominately 
industrial  state  which  had  set  in  in  the  previous 
decade,  was  also  credited  to  the  war  and  it  was 
felt  that  the  principle  of  natural  selection  could 

I  Life  and  Letters  of  Darwin,  p.  150. 


42  Causes  of  its  Success 

be  directly  observed  at  work  in  the  German 
nation. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  victory  should  have 
contributed  greatly  to  the  success  of  the  philosophy 
of  force  in  Germany,  but  it  seems  paradoxical  that 
the  war  of  1870  should  have  increased  the  popu- 
larity of  "social  Darwinism"  also  in  France! 
It  would  seem  that  this  country,  having  been 
defeated  and  subjected  to  a  flagrant  violation 
of  its  rights,  ought  to  have  found  force  hateful 
and  justice  admirable,  but  nevertheless  it  did  not 
so  happen.  How  can  this  apparent  contradiction 
be  explained  ?  Novikov  has  unravelled  the  com- 
plicated causes  as  follows : 

After  the  defeat  of  1870  French  public  opinion 
might  have  followed  either  of  two  different  direc- 
tions. The  French  could  have  said:  "We  have 
suffered  a  hateful  injustice;  it  is  necessary  there- 
fore to  do  everything  in  our  power  to  insure  that 
such  international  deeds  as  this  may  never  be 
repeated.  We  must  attempt  to  suppress  in- 
justice; in  other  words  we  must  work  for  an  in- 
ternational union.  Might  is  wrong;  Right  alone 
is  beautiful.  Down  with  Force;  long  live  the 
Law!" 

But  another  conclusion  was  also  possible :  "  The 
military  power  of  Prussia  has  inflicted  upon  us 
the  deepest  humiliation  and  the  most  cruel  tor- 
ment. If  force  had  been  upon  our  side  it  is  we 
who  would  have  tasted  the  sweets  of  triumph,  and 
the  Prussians  who  would  have  drained  the  dregs 


The  Franco-Prussian  War  of  1870  43 

of  defeat.  Nothing  is  more  useful  than  power. 
Down  with  Law!     Long  live  Force ! " 

For  many  centuries  France  had  been  a  formi- 
dable nation,  belligerent,  proud,  and  intoxi- 
cated with  success.  Twice  she  had  exercised 
an  incontestable  dominance  in  Europe,  under 
Louis  XIV.  and  under  Napoleon.  France  had 
used  and  abused  force.  She  could  not  resign 
herself  to  defeat.  From  this  we  can  trace  the 
rise  of  a  revanche  party  and  the  success  of  ' '  social 
Darwinism"  in  France  and  we  can  understand 
also  the  growing  disfavour  which  befell ' '  Idealism  " 
— that  is  to  say  the  political  philosophy  of  jus- 
tice— in  the  years  immediately  following  1870. 

The  same  circumstances  explain  the  dominance 
of  the  philosophy  of  force  in  Italy  as  in  France. 
"When  at  the  epoch  of  the  Risorgimento  the  different 
states  of  Italy  were  finally  formed  into  one  na- 
tion, they  suffered,  blow  after  blow,  the  bitterness 
of  defeat — at  first  at  Custozza  (1866)  and  then 
at  Lissa.  In  their  period  of  "juvenile  efferves- 
cence," as  Novikov  calls  it,  the  Italians  had  an 
eager  desire  to  make  for  themselves  a  place  equal 
to  the  other  powers  of  Europe.  Not  being  able 
to  obtain  this,  they  were  filled  with  bitter  regret, 
and  the  possession  of  force  appeared  to  them  also 
to  constitute  the  apex  of  human  felicity.  They 
felt  that  a  victory  would  exalt  them  as  much  as 
a  defeat  had  discouraged  them.  They  believed 
that  after  one  or  two  brilliant  victories  they  could 
occupy  immediately  a  position  of  the  first  rank 


44  Causes  of  its  Success 

as  a  Great  Power.  They  were  deprived  of  this 
profound  joy  and  saw  themselves  condemned  to 
modesty.  All  this  gave  an  extraordinary  prestige 
to  force  and  favoured  the  popularity  of  the  Dar- 
winian doctrine.  The  Italians  had  inaugurated 
a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  world — the  forma- 
tion of  a  great  State,  not  by  massacre  on  the  field 
of  battle,  but  by  the  unanimous  plebiscite  of  her 
citizens.  They  had  the  supreme  glory  of  being 
the  first  nation  founded  upon  law.  Yet  they  at- 
tributed to  this  fact  a  mediocre  importance.  They 
would  have  greatly  preferred  a  victory  gained 
through  bloodshed  and  wholesale  slaughter,  to 
the  most  wonderful  victory  gained  in  the  domain 
of  ideas,  and  all  these  exaltations  of  brute  force 
aided  in  the  triumph  of  the  distorted  Darwinian 
doctrine. 

The  other  nations  of  Europe  were  also  influenced 
by  the  current  of  ideas  which  had  established 
themselves  in  Germany,  France,  and  Italy.  Eng- 
land, the  cradle  of  true  Darwinism,  was  naturally 
very  sympathetic  toward  this  distorted  "social 
Darwinism"  which  was  reflected  from  the  conti- 
nent especially  because  she  had  an  immense 
colonial  empire  founded  upon  force  and  in  parts 
still  sustained  by  force. 

From  Europe  the  philosophy  of  force  spread  to 
the  rest  of  the  world.  The  South  American  coun- 
tries received  the  doctrine  from  France  and  Italy. 
The  Imperialists  of  America  imported  their  ideas 
from  the  Imperialists  of  England.     The  strong 


spread  of  Social  Darwinism        45 

feudal  traditions  of  Japan,  the  influence  of  German 
ideas  upon  Japanese  education,  the  victory  of  the 
Japanese  over  the  Chinese  in  1896  and  over  the 
Russians  in  1906,  have  combined  to  augment 
the  prestige  of  the  philosophy  of  force  and  the 
popularity  of  this  distorted  Darwinian  doctrine  in 
Asia.  Even  China,  with  its  centuries-old  tradi- 
tions of  pacifism  handed  down  from  her  great 
philosophers  and  teachers,  Confucius  and  Lao- 
Tse  and  Mo,  has  felt  the  influence  of  the  doctrine 
brought  back  by  her  students  from  the  universities 
in  Japan  and  Europe. 

Among  all  the  Western  nations  the  unprece- 
dented growth  of  modern  Imperialism,  which 
finds  its  scientific  defence  in  the  application  of 
the  Darwinian  theory  to  the  struggle  between 
races,  has  given  an  immense  impulse  to  the 
philosophy  of  force.  The  leading  characteristic 
of  international  relations  since  1870  has  been 
the  competition  of  rival  empires.  From  1870  to 
1900  Great  Britain  added  to  its  domains  an  area 
of  4,754,000  square  miles,  with  an  estimated 
population  of  88,000,000 — about  forty  times  the 
area  and  double  the  population  of  the  mother 
country.  The  close  of  the  Franco-Prussian  war 
marked  the  beginning  of  a  new  colonial  policy  for 
France,  and  a  little  later,  for  Germany,  and  this 
policy  began  to  assume  practical  form  after  1880. 
Since  1880  France  has  acquired  an  area  of  more 
than  3,500,000  square  miles,  almost  all  of  it  tropical 
or  subtropical,  with  a  native  population  of  about 


46  Causes  of  its  Success 

37,000,000.  During  the  fifteen  years  following 
1884,  when  Germany  entered  upon  her  Imperialist 
career  with  a  policy  of  African  protectorates  and 
the  annexation  of  Oceanic  islands,  she  acquired 
an  area  of  about  1,000,000  square  miles,  with  an 
estimated  population  of  14,000,000.  Almost  the 
whole  of  her  added  territory  was  tropical,  and  the 
white  population  numbered  only  a  few  thousands. 

Italy,  Portugal,  and  Belgium  entered  directly 
into  the  competition  of  the  new  Imperialism 
between  1880  and  1884.  Russia's  expansionist 
policy,  though  more  in  the  nature  of  a  regular 
colonial  policy  of  settlement  for  the  purposes  of 
agriculture  and  industry  than  the  new  Imperialism, 
comes  definitely  into  competition  with  this  in  Asia, 
as  in  Persia  and  Manchuria,  and  has  been  as- 
suming increasingly  an  Imperialist  nature. 

The  annexation  of  Formosa  by  Japan  following 
the  victory  over  China,  and  of  Korea  following  the 
Russo-Japanese  war,  showed  that  this  rising  and 
progressive  Oriental  Empire  adopted  Imperial- 
ism with  the  other  characteristics  of  Occidental 
civilization. 

The  entrance  of  the  United  States  of  America 
upon  an  Imperialistic  career  by  the  annexation  of 
Hawaii,  and  later,  of  the  Philippines,  marks  the 
extension  of  the  competition  to  the  Western 
Hemisphere. 

This  unprecedented  growth  of  Imperialism 
among  all  the  great  powers  contributed  powerfully 
to  the  spread  of  the  philosophy  of  force.     On  the 


Imperial  Darwinism  47 

one  hand,  "social  Darwinism"  was  enlisted  to 
justify  the  methods  of  force  which  were  used  so 
extensively  in  this  process  of  conquest  and  subjuga- 
tion; on  the  other  hand,  the  results  of  Imperial- 
ism were  pointed  to  as  the  proofs  of  the  process 
of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  and  the  inevitable 
dominance  of  the  higher  civilization,  thus  con- 
tributing to  the  spread  of  the  pseudo-scientific 
doctrine. 

Even  sociologists  have  shown  themselves  eager 
in  some  cases  to  accept  the  philosophy  of  force 
as  the  sufficient  justification  of  Imperialism,  and  to 
apply  it  to  defend  the  necessity,  the  utility,  and 
even  the  righteousness  of  continuing  the  physical 
struggle  between  races  and  types  of  civilization 
to  the  point  of  complete  subjugation  or  extermi- 
nation. Thus  Professor  Karl  Pearson  maintains 
that  a  constant  struggle  with  other  groups  or 
races  is  demanded  for  the  maintenance  and  pro- 
gress of  a  race  or  nation.  If  you  abate  the  neces- 
sity of  struggle,  the  vigour  of  the  race  flags  and 
perishes.  It  is  to  the  real  interest  of  a  vigorous 
race,  he  says,  to  be 

kept  up  to  a  high  pitch  of  external  efficiency  by  contest, 
chiefly  by  way  of  war  with  inferior  races,  and  with 
equal  races  by  the  struggle  for  trade  routes  and  for 
the  sources  of  raw  material  and  of  food  supply.  This 
is  the  natural  history  view  of  mankind,  and  I  do  not 
think  you  can  in  its  main  features  subvert  it.^ 

'  National  Life  from  the  Standpoint  of  Science,  1901,  p.  44. 


48  Causes  of  its  Success 

By  others,  who  take  a  wider,  cosmic  view,  the 
argument  has  been  put  on  the  ground  of  "social 
efficiency."  "Human  progress,"  so  runs  the 
argument,  "requires  the  maintenance  of  the  race 
struggle,  in  which  the  weakest  races  shall  go  under, 
while  the  'socially  efficient'  races  survive  and 
flourish;  we  are  the  .socially  efficient  race;  therefore 
our  nation  must  take  up  the  'white  man's  bur- 
den' and  enter  upon  an  Imperialistic  career." 
The  principle  of  social  efficiency  is  described  as 
being  "as  indisputable  as  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion" by  Edmund  Demolins,  who  enunciates  it  as 
follows : 

When  one  race  shows  itself  superior  to  another  in  the 
various  externals  of  domestic  life,  it  inevitably  in  the 
long  run  gets  the  upper  hand  in  public  life  and  estab- 
lishes its  predominance.  Whether  this  predominance 
is  asserted  by  peaceable  means  or  feats  of  arms,  it  is 
none  the  less,  when  the  proper  time  comes,  officially 
established,  and  afterwards  unreservedly  acknow- 
ledged. I  have  said  that  this  law  is  the  only  thing 
which  accounts  for  the  history  of  the  human  race 
and  the  revolutions  of  empires,  and  that,  moreover, 
it  explains  and  justifies  the  appropriation  by  Europeans 
of  territories  in  Asia,  Africa,  and  Oceania,  and  the 
whole  of  our  colonial  development.  ^ 

The  gospel  of  Imperialism,  as  embodied  in  the 
career  of  Hubert  Hervey  of  the  British  South 
African  Chartered  Company,  has  been  summed 
up  by  his  fellow-adventurer,  Earl  Grey,  as  follows : 

*  Boers  or  British,  p.  24. 


Survival  of  the  Fittest  Races        49 

Probably  every  one  would  agree  that  an  English- 
man would  be  right  in  considering  his  way  of  looking 
at  the  world  and  at  life  better  than  that  of  the  Maori 
or  Hottentot,  and  no  one  will  object  in  the  abstract 
to  England  doing  her  best  to  impose  her  better  and 
higher  view  on  those  savages.  But  the  same  idea  will 
carry  you  much  farther.  In  so  far  as  an  Englishman 
differs  in  essentials  from  a  Swede  or  Belgian,  he  believes 
that  he  represents  a  more  perfectly  developed  standard 
of  general  excellence.  Yes,  and  even  those  nations 
nearest  to  us  in  mind  and  sentiment — German  and 
Scandinavian — we  regard  on  the  whole  as  not  so 
excellent  as  ourselves,  comparing  their  typical  char- 
acteristics with  ours.  Were  this  not  so,  our  energies 
would  be  directed  to  becoming  what  they  are.  With- 
out doing  this,  however,  we  may  well  endeavour  to 
pick  out  their  best  qualities  and  add  them  to  ours, 
believing  that  our  compound  will  be  superior  to  the 
foreign  stock. 

It  is  the  mark  of  an  independent  nation  that  it 
should  feel  thus.  How  far  such  a  feeling  is,  in  any 
particular  case,  justified,  history  alone  decides.  But 
it  is  essential  that  each  claimant  for  the  first  place 
should  put  forward  his  whole  energy  to  prove  his 
right.  This  is  the  moral  justification  for  international 
strife  and  for  war,  and  a  great  change  must  come 
over  the  world  and  over  men's  minds  before  there  can 
be  any  question  of  everlasting  universal  peace,  or  the 
settlement  of  all  international  differences  by  arbitra- 
tion. More  especially  must  the  difficulty  caused  by 
the  absence  of  a  generally  recognized  standard  of 
justice  be  felt  in  the  case  of  contact  between  civilized 
and  uncivilized  races.  Is  there  any  likelihood  of  the 
gulf  between  the  white  and  the  black  man  being 
4 


50  Causes  of  its  Success 

bridged  within  any  period  of  time  that  we  can  foresee? 
Can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the  white  man  must,  and 
will,  impose  his  superior  civilization  on  the  coloured 
races?  The  rivalry  of  the  principal  European  coun- 
tries in  extending  their  influence  over  other  conti- 
nents should  lead  naturally  to  the  evolution  of  the 
highest  attainable  type  of  government  of  subject 
races  by  the  superior  qualities  of  their  rulers.^ 

This  is  an  excellent  statement  of  the  scientific 
basis  of  Imperialism,  including  in  its  survey  the 
physical  struggle  between  white  races,  the  sub- 
jugation of  lower  races  by  the  white  race,  the  ne- 
cessity and  the  utility  of  this  struggle  and  this 
subjugation,  and  finally  the  right  of  domination 
based  upon  this  necessity.  The  white  man  believes 
he  is  a  more  excellent  type  than  any  other  man ;  he 
believes  he  is  better  able  to  assimilate  any  special 
virtues  others  may  have;  he  believes  that  this 
character  gives  him  a  right  to  rule  which  no  other 
can  possess.  Thus,  starting  from  natural  history, 
the  doctrine  soon  takes  on  the  outer  garments  of 
ethical  and  even  religious  sanctions,  and  we  soon 
reach  the  elevated  atmosphere  of  "Imperial 
Christianity,"  the  "mission  of  civilization,"  in 
which  our  nation  is  called  upon  to  teach  the  "arts 
of  good  government,"  the  "dignity  of  labour." 
And  not  only  our  nation ;  Mr.  Hervey  admits  that 
the  patriotic  Frenchman,  the  German,  the  Rus- 
sian, feels  in  the  same  way  his  own  sense  of  superi- 

'  Memoir  of  Hubert  Hervey,  by  Earl  Grey  (1899),  quoted  by 
J.  A.  Hobson,  in  Imperialism,  a  Study,  pp.  138-39. 


Struggle  between  Rival  Empires    51 

ority,  and  the  rights  it  confers  on  him.  So  much  the 
better,  he  says,  agreeing  with  Professor  Pearson, 
for  this  cross-conviction  and  these  cross-interests 
insure  the  survival  and  the  gradual  perfection 
of  the  fittest  through  international  strife  and 
war. 

Here  we  have  "social  Darwinism"  in  its  final 
consummation,  transformed  from  its  lowly  begin- 
nings of  struggle  in  the  animal  world  to  its  apotheo- 
sis in  the  mighty  conflicts  of  rival  empires.  In  the 
history  of  modern  Europe,  in  the  ententes  and 
alliances  of  the  ' '  balance  of  power  " ;  in  the  recipro- 
cal and  cumulative  preparations  "for  defence 
only"  while  these  rival  aggressive  policies  of 
Imperialism  were  being  steadily  pursued,  we  can 
follow  the  inevitable  development  of  a  system  of 
international  anarchy  based  on  doctrines  of  mutual 
antagonism  and  destructive  competition.  And 
finally,  if  the  pragmatic  test,  "By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them,"  is  to  be  applied  to  the  logical 
results  of  social  and  political  theory,  the  philosophy 
of  force  is  self-condemned  by  the  breakdown  in 
August,  1914,  of  the  civilization  founded  in  so 
large  a  measure  upon  this  philosophy. 

It  is  not  sufficient,  however,  to  know  that  a 
social  philosophy  is  unsound,  as  shown  by  the  fact 
that  it  breaks  down  in  practice.  If  the  truer 
theory  of  human  relations  by  which  we  hope  to 
replace  it  is  not  to  run  the  danger  of  having  the 
same  or  similar  weaknesses,  we  must  apply  to  the 
outworn  system  a  searching  criticism;  we  must 


52  Causes  of  its  Success 

find  out  by  careful  analysis  just  where  it  is  wrong, 
and  what  are  its  errors.  In  the  next  chapter, 
therefore,  we  shall  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
the  biological  errors  of  the  philosophy  of  force. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  BIOLOGICAL  ERRORS 

THE  primary  error  ^  of  those  who  have  dis- 
torted Darwin's  theory  beyond  all  recogni- 
tion is  one  of  stupendous  magnitude.  It  consists 
in  ignoring  completely  the  existence  of  the  physical 
universe!  The  cause  of  progress  is  assumed  to 
be,  not  the  struggle  of  man  with  his  environment, 
from  which  he  gets  food,  clothing,  shelter,  and  all 
other  necessities,  but  the  struggle  of  man  with 
man,  a  struggle  which  is  by  its  nature  unproductive 
and  fruitless. 

The  infinite  error  involved  in  forgetting  entirely 
the  existence  of  the  physical  universe  is  due, 
first,  to  a  common  defect  of  the  human  mind, 
which  tends  to  overlook  the  most  commonplace 

'  Novikov's  analysis  {La  Critique  du  Darwinisme  social, 
chapters  ii.-xx.)  of  the  errors  of  "social  Darwinism"  into  three 
groups — (i)  errors  of  the  biological  order;  (2)  general  errors  of  the 
sociological  order,  and  (3)  special  errors  of  the  sociological  order — 
has  been  followed  in  this  and  the  two  succeeding  chapters  of  the 
present  work.  Those  desiring  a  more  detailed  criticism  than  is 
given  in  the  present  summary  are  referred  to  Novikov's  larger 
work,  in  which  a  separate  chapter  is  devoted  to  each  of  the 
seventeen  most  important  errors. 

53 


54  The  Biological  Errors 

and  obvious  facts  of  existence  in  favour  of  the 
unusual  and  abnormal;  and  second,  to  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  terms ' '  struggle  for  existence" 
and  "survival  of  the  fittest"  as  used  by  Darwin. 

Those  who  believe  in  the  distorted  form  of 
** social  Darwinism,"  obsessed  by  the  idea  of 
struggle,  forget  entirely  the  greatest  struggle 
of  all,  the  struggle  of  man  against  his  physical  en- 
vironment, because  it  is  so  common  and  so  omni- 
present. The  relations  of  men  to  the  universe 
are  infinitely  closer  than  those  of  men  to  each 
other.  A  man  may  live  for  years  without  contact 
with  other  men,  like  Alexander  Selkirk,  whose 
experiences  have  been  given  literary  form  in 
Defoe's  Robinson  Crusoe,  but  the  necessity  for 
adaptation  to  the  physical  universe  is  constant. 
Man,  in  common  with  all  animals,  is  compelled 
to  engage  in  a  continual  effort  to  maintain  a 
constant  temperature.  He  cannot-  live  more  than 
a  few  minutes  without  air,  or  a  few  days  with- 
out water,  or  a  few  weeks  without  food.  The 
danger  from  disease  germs  is  always  present. 
The  greatest  waste  of  the  philosophy  of  force  and 
the  war  system  consists  in  the  fact  that,  having 
accustomed  us  to  consider  collective  homicide  as 
the  source  of  all  civilization,  it  diverts  our  energies 
and  our  attentions  from  the  real  struggle  against 
the  external  universe  and  the  common  enemies  of 
mankind  to  the  destructive  struggle  against  the 
artificial  enemies  whom  we  create,  on  account  of 
false  ideas,  out  of  other  parts  of  the  human  race. 


Ignoring  the  Physical  Universe      55 

The  struggle  against  the  physical  environment 
is  the  most  important  labour  which  occupies  our 
species  as  well  as  all  other  species.  Consider, 
for  example,  the  struggle  against  the  physical 
universe  involved  in  maintaining  the  proper 
difference  of  temperature  between  ourselves  and 
the  surrounding  atmosphere.  We  take  infinite 
pains  to  provide  ourselves  with  clothing,  dwellings, 
and  with  complicated  heating  systems  in  cold 
climates,  and  cooling  systems  in  hot  climates. 
The  necessity  for  providing  air  which  is  sufficiently 
pure  in  a  chemical  sense  constitutes  an  ever- 
present  problem,  especially  in  large  cities,  where, 
in  the  case  of  tenements,  it  is  far  from  being 
solved.  To  get  air  which  is  sufficiently  pure  in  a 
biological  sense  is  a  matter  even  more  urgent  and 
gives  rise  to  the  whole  system  of  modern  sanita- 
tion, from  the  extensive  sewage  systems  of  mod- 
ern cities  to  the  institutes  for  the  research  and 
cure  of  tuberculosis.  To  get  an  abundant  supply 
of  pure  water  for  drinking  purposes  immense 
aqueducts  are  built,  at  great  cost,  to  the  sources 
of  an  adequate  and  pure  supply  in  the  springs 
and  watersheds  of  the  mountains.  The  necessity 
of  struggle  for  an  adequate  food  supply  occupies 
a  large  part  of  the  energies  of  men.  It  gives  rise 
to  the  great  industries  of  agriculture,  stock- 
raising,  fishing,  and  hunting,  as  well  as  to  the 
derived  industries  and  manufactures  of  all  kinds, 
such  as  meat-packers,  butchers,  bakeries.  The 
struggle  against  the  physical  environment  gives 


56  The  Biological  Errors 

rise  to  the  whole  compHcated  system  of  distribu- 
tion and  transportation,  to  the  manufacture  of 
agricultural  instruments,  the  building  of  rail- 
roads and  ships,  stockyards  and  canals.  It  has 
led  to  the  process  of  specialization  and  the  division 
of  labour.  First  man,  gathers  the  fruits  which 
he  eats  directly,  then  he  makes  a  tool  with  which 
to  reach  the  fruits,  then  he  makes  a  second 
tool  with  which  to  manufacture  the  first,  and 
so  on  through  an  infinite  number  of  inventions  to 
all  the  wonders  of  modern  scientific  research  and 
discovery. 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  colossal  error 
than  is  committed  by  the  philosophy  of  force  when 
it  disregards  all  this  infinite  struggle  of  man 
against  his  physical  environment  and  concentrates 
all  its  attention  upon  the  struggle  of  man  against 
man.  The  biological  error  involved  is  like  that 
which  was  committed  by  the  old  political  economy, 
which  considered  solely  the  secondary  phenomena 
of  exchange  between  men,  and  left  out  of  account 
all  considerations  of  the  primary  phenomena  of 
production  and  of  the  adaptation  of  the  environ- 
ment to  man's  needs. 

When  this  "immemorial  warfare  of  man  against 
Nature,"^  is  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
"social  Darwinists, "  they  go  so  far  as  to  deny  that 
the  relations  between  man  and  his  physical  en- 
vironments can  be  described  by  the  word  struggle. 
Thus  Mr.  E.  d'Eichthal  protests  against  applying 

'  William  James,  Memories  and  Studies,  p.  288. 


Ignoring  the  Physical  Universe      57 

the  word  struggle  to  the  process  of  adapting  the 
physical  universe  to  the  needs  of  man : 

This  is  a  real  abuse  of  words.  Struggle  ought  always 
to  imply  the  intention  to  destroy  one  another.  No 
struggle  can  take  place  between  or  against  inanimate 
bodies;  this  becomes  a  simple  metaphor.^ 

To  say  that  the  relations  between  man  and  his 
physical  environment  are  not  a  struggle  and  to  re- 
serve this  term  uniquely  for  the  relations  between 
men  is  to  fail  to  see  ninety-nine  one  hundredths 
of  our  activity.  Mr.  d'Eichthal  is  perfectly  right 
in  saying  that  the  action  of  one  inanimate  body  on 
another  can  only  be  described  as  a  struggle  by  a 
metaphorical  use  of  the  word,  but  the  relations 
between  man  and  the  physical  environment,  which 
includes  the  entire  world — mineral,  vegetable,  and 
animal,  is  a  real  struggle  in  the  literal  sense  of  the 
terms. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  struggle  never  has  for  its 
object  the  destruction  of  the  adversary.  Its 
object  is  always  to  transform  the  environment 
so  that  the  individual  may  survive.  When  a 
farmer  plucks  the  weed  of  a  field  in  order  to  sow 
wheat,  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  harming  the 
weed,  but  in  order  to  have  bread.  When  the 
microbes  of  tuberculosis  are  killed  by  a  disinfect- 
ant, it  is  not  done  for  the  sake  of  destroying  the 
microbes,  but  with  the  object  of  saving  the  life 
of    a    human    being.     The    "social    Darwinists" 

'  Guerre  et  paix  internationales,  Paris,  1909,  p.  7. 


58  The  Biological  Errors 

who  would  exclude  the  warfare  with  nature  from 
the  conception  of  struggle  and  confine  its  inter- 
pretations to  the  narrow  sense  of  battle,  from  the 
hand-to-hand  combat  of  individuals  to  the  collec- 
tive homicide  of  great  wars,  have  not  read  Dar- 
win's works,  but  have  obtained  their  opinions  of 
the  meaning  of  his  terms  at  second  hand  from 
the  popularizers  who  have  distorted  his  theory. 
Darwin,  who  complains  bitterly  in  his  letters 
against  the  misrepresentations  of  his  ideas,  ^  tried 
to  guard  expressly  against  the  misinterpretation 
of  the  word  "struggle"  which  has  occurred  in  the 
philosophy  of  force.  In  a  section  headed,  "The 
Term  Struggle  for  Existence  Used  in  a  Large 
Sense, "  he  says: 

I  should  premise  that  I  use  this  term  in  a  large  and 
metaphorical  sense,  including  dependence  of  one  being 
on  another,  and  including  (which  is  more  important) 
not  only  the  life  of  the  individual,  but  success  in 
leaving  progeny.^ 

He  then  proceeds  to  illustrate  the  term  in  words 
which  leave  no  doubt  that  it  includes  as  one  of 
its  most  important  elements  the  struggle  against 
the  universe.     Thus 

a  plant  on  the  edge  of  a  desert  is  said  to  struggle  for 
life  against  the   drought,  though   more    properly  it 

'  In  a  letter  to  C.  Lyell  he  wrote : 

"  I  am  beginning  to  despair  of  ever  making  the  majority  under- 
stand my  notions  ...  I  must  be  a  very  bad  explainer." — Life 
and  Letters  of  Darwin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  iii. 

*  The  Origin  of  Species,  6th  edition,  p.  56. 


Life  Is  Struggle  with  Environment  59- 

should  be  said  to  be  dependent  on  the  moisture.  A 
plant  which  annually  produces  a  thousand  seeds,  of 
which  only  one  of  an  average  comes  to  maturity,  may 
be  more  truly  said  to  struggle  with  the  plants  of  the 
same  and  other  kinds  which  already  clothe  the 
ground.  .  .  .  When  we  reach  the  arctic  regions,  or 
snow-capped  summits,  or  absolute  deserts,  the  strug- 
gle for  life  is  almost  exclusively  with  the  elements.* 

The  "social  Darwinists"  claim  to  find  the  basis 
of  their  theories  in  biological  facts,  but  the  bio- 
logists follow  Darwin  in  refusing  to  disregard 
completely  the  most  fundamental  facts  of  life. 
Thus,  Felix  Le  Dantec  says : 

The  life  of  a  living  being  results  from  two  factors: 
the  being  and  the  environment.  At  each  instance 
the. vital  or  functional  phenomena  do  not  reside  in  the 
being  alone,  nor  in  the  environment  alone,  but  in  the 
actual  relations  which  exist  between  the  being  and 
the  environment.  ^ 

The  same  author  says  in  another  place : 

It  was  considered  formerly  that  the  living  being 
existed  by  itself  within  its  limiting  surface  independ- 
ently of  the  surrounding  environment,  but  this  idea 
contains  a  manifest  error  derived  from  the  old  vital- 
istic  theories,  in  which  it  was  supposed  that  a  vital 
principle  animated  the  living  body  and  was  localized 
jin  it.  In  reality  the  living  being  is  the  result  of  a 
struggle  between  two  factors:  the  substance  localized 

»  The  Ortgtn  of  Species,  pp.  56,  61.         .^i^    ' 
^  Revue  scientifique,  1908,  November  14,  p.  610. 


6o  The  Biological  Errors 

within  the  surface  of  the  animal — the  body  of  the 
animal — on  the  one  side;  and  on  the  other  side,  the 
surrounding  environment.  .  .  .  Life  is  the  struggle  it- 
self between  the  body  of  the  being  and  the  surround- 
ings. .  .  .  The  immediate  phenomena  of  the  struggle 
take  place  between  the  individual  and  its  surround- 
ings much  more  often  than  between  one  individual 
and  another  individual.  The  direct  struggle  is  the 
struggle  of  man  against  his  environment ;  this  struggle 
is  life.  * 

Thus  the  science  of  biology,  on  which  the  phi- 
losophy of  force  relies  for  its  proof  that  war  is  a 
biological  necessity,  decides  not  for  it  but  against 
it.  Biology,  in  demonstrating  that  life  is  the 
struggle  against  the  physical  environment,  teaches 
us  to  see  in  this  struggle  the  principal  phenome- 
non, while  the  struggle  between  individuals  of 
the  same  species  is  an  accessory  phenomenon 
of  subsidiary  importance.  Biology  thus  restores 
things  to  their  proper  proportions.  It  obliges 
sociology  to  consider  before  everything  else  the 
relations  of  man  with  his  physical  environment, 
and  forces  it  to  rid  itself  of  the  social  myopia  that 
has  fallen  upon  the  "social  Darwinists."  It 
compels  it  to  recognize  at  the  threshold  of  its  task, 
that  there  is  an  external  world,  infinite  in  extent, 
the  study  of  which  ought  to  take  the  precedence 
over  all  other  considerations. 

The  same  disregard  of  the  existence  of  the  uni- 
verse  leads  to  a  misinterpretation  of  the  term 

\La  luUe  universelle,  Paris,  1906,  pp.  73,  283. 


"Fittest"  for  Physical  Environment    6i 

"Survival  of  the  Fittest."  In  the  philosophy  of 
force  "fittest"  means  "strongest,"  often  indeed 
"most  brutal."  In  Darwin's  work  and  in  biology 
"fittest"  means  "best  adapted"  to  the  physical 
environment.  In  the  chapter  on  "Natural  Selec- 
tion; or  the  Survival  of  the  Fittest,"  Darwin 
says: 

Let  it  also  be  borne  in  mind  how  infinitely  complex 
and  close-fitting  are  the  mutual  relations  of  all  organic 
beings  to  each  other  and  to  their  physical  conditions 
of  life;  and  consequently  what  infinitely  varied  diversi- 
ties of  structures  might  be  of  use  to  each  being  under 
changing  conditions  of  life.  .  .  .  This  preservation 
of  favourable  individual  differences  and  variations, 
and  the  destruction  of  those  which  are  injurious,  I  have 
called  Natural  Selection,  or  the  Survival  of  the 
Fittest. ^ 

We  shall  best  understand  the  probable  course  of 
Natural  Selection  by  taking  the  case  of  a  country 
undergoing  some  physical  change,  for  instance,  of 
climate.  The  proportional  numbers  of  its  inhabitants 
will  almost  immediately  undergo  a  change  and  some 
species  will  probably  become  extinct.  ...  In  such 
cases,  slight  modification,  which  in  any  way  favoured 

'  In  a  letter  to  C.  Lyell,  in  which  Darwin  complained  of  the 
way  in  which  his  work  was  misrepresented  and  misunderstood, 
he  wrote :  "  I  suppose  '  Natural  Selection '  was  a  bad  term ;  but 
to  change  it  now,  I  think,  would  make  confusion  worse  con- 
founded; nor  can  I  think  of  a  better.  'Natural  Preservation' 
would  not  imply  a  preservation  of  particular  varieties  and  would 
seem  a  truism  and  would  not  bring  man's  and  nature's  selections 
under  one  point  of  view." — Life  and  Letters  of  Darwin,  vol.  ii., 
p. III. 


62  The  Biological  Errors 

individuals  of  any  species,  by  better  adapting  them  to 
their  altered  conditions,  would  tend  to  be  preserved; 
and  natural  selection  would  have  free  scope  for  the 
work  of  improvement.  ^ 

The  struggle  against  the  physical  universe, 
which  is  so  completely  disregarded  in  the  philoso- 
phy of  force,  constitutes  what  is  usually  called 
economic  production.  This  struggle  is  continuous : 
it  is  being  waged  every  minute  and  indeed  every 
second.  The  disproportion  between  the  days  of 
labour  given  to  this  struggle  against  the  surround- 
ings and  the  days  of  labour  given  to  the  struggle 
between  men  is  simply  enormous.  Some  people 
such  as  the  Swedish  people,  for  example,  have 
not  had  either  a  war  with  a  foreign  nation  or  a 
civil  war  for  a  century.  The  number  of  days 
used  in  combating  their  own  kind  has  been  o 
during  this  period.  But  the  number  of  days 
devoted  to  the  struggle  against  the  physical  en- 
vironment, on  the  basis  of  an  average  working 
population  of  three  million  people  during  the 
36,500  days  of  the  century  is  109,500,000,000  at 
least.  The  proportion  of  zero  to  109  billion  is 
infinite.  But  Sweden  has  made  enormous  progress 
during  the  nineteenth  century  and  ranks  among 
the  highest  and  most  civilized  nations  in  the 
world.  Yet  all  this  progress  has  been  made  with- 
out the  aid  of  a  single  war.  How  can  it  be  affirmed 
then  that  collective  homicide  is  the  cause  of  pro- 

*  The  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  69-71. 


The  Moral  Equivalent  for  War      63 

gress?  Since  the  struggle  against  the  physical 
environment  is  the  most  constant  struggle  which 
the  individual  has  to  endure,  it  is  natural  that  the 
amount  of  happiness  should  be  in  direct  proportion 
to  the  importance  of  the  victory  attained  in  this 
field.  But  this  victory  is  the  adaptation  of  the 
environment  to  the  needs  of  the  individual. 
Adaptation  is  obtained  by  economic  work.  To  say 
that  progress  results  from  collective  homicide  is 
equivalent  to  affirming  that  the  well-being  of  man 
does  not  result  from  the  adaptation  of  his  environ- 
ment to  his  needs.  This  disregard  of  the  existence 
of  the  universe  constitutes  the  most  profound  de- 
ception imaginable  in  the  realm  of  social  science. 
The  importance  of  labour  as  the  real  struggle 
of  the  human  race  is  recognized  increasingly  by  all 
students  of  social  problems.  One  of  them  sums  up 
the  case  against  the  first  error  of  the  philosophy 
of  force  as  follows : 

Labour  is  the  great  Conqueror.  Not  War  butWork, 
is  the  great  Educator;  and  the  essential  watchword  of 
all  permanent  advance.  ...  It  is  not  the  men  that 
give  up  fighting,  who  lose  stamina  and  virility,  but 
the  men  who  give  up  work.  The  most  "unfit"  are 
they  who  least  co-operate  in  the  great  struggle  of  their 
race  against  whatever  in  its  environment  obstructs 
real  progress  and  development.  And  of  all  such 
obstacles  War  is  the  greatest,  as  may  at  any  time 
clearly  be  seen  from  the  condition  of  those  peoples 
who  chiefly  occupy  their  time  in  conflict,  either  with 
their  neighbours  or  among  themselves.^ 

'  W.  L.  Grane,  The  Passing  of  War,  p.  6i. 


64  The  Biological  Errors 

William  James  comes  to  the  same  conclusion 
and  finds  a  moral  equivalent  for  war  and  a  remedy 
for  existing  injustice  in  the  idea  of  compulsory 
industrial  service.  Instead  of  military  conscrip- 
tion, he  advocates  a  conscription  of  the  whole 
youthful  population  to  form  for  a  certain  number 
of  years  a  part  of  the  army  enUsted  against  Nature.  ^ 

The  second  error  of  the  philosophy  of  force 
is  that  in  which  struggle  is  confused  with  the 
extermination  of  fellow-creatures.  A  typical  ex- 
ample of  this  confusion  may  be  quoted  from 
Spencer^  who  maintains  that  without  the  collec- 
tive homicides  of  the  past  ten  thousand  years 
the  world  would  still  be  inhabited  only  by  cavemen 
of  a  feeble  type: 

...  to  the  unceasing  warfare  between  species  is 
mainly  due  both  growth  and  organization.  Without 
universal  conflict  there  would  have  been  no  develop- 
ment of  the  active  powers.  .  .  .  Among  predatory  ani- 
mals death  by  starvation,  and  among  animals  preyed 
upon  death  by  destruction,  has  carried  off  the  least- 
fa  vourably  modified  individuals  and  varieties.  Every 
advance  in  strength,  speed,  agility,  or  sagacity,  in 
creatures  of  the  one  class,  has  necessitated  a  cor- 
responding advance  in  creatures  of  the  other  class; 
and  without  the  never-ending  efforts  to  catch  and  to 
escape,  with  loss  of  life  as  the  penalty  of  failure,  the 
progress  of  neither  could  have  been  achieved.  ,  .  . 

^  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War,  p.  17. 

'  Principles  of  Sociology,  2d  edition,  vol.  ii.,  p.  240. 


Struggle  not  Extermination  of  Kind  65 

Similarly  with  social  organisms.  We  must  recog- 
nize the  truth  that  the  struggle  for  existence  between 
societies  has  been  instrumental  to  their  evolution. 

The  first  objection  which  presents  itself  is  a 
biological  one.  It  is  strange  that  Spencer  did  not 
realize  that  his  argument  was  inconsistent.  The 
unceasing  warfare  between  species,  he  says,  is  the 
cause  of  both  growth  and  organization,  that  is,  of 
the  appearance  of  more  perfect  types.  Since  the 
Paleozoic  Age  all  the  species,  without  exception, 
have  been  subjected  to  the  pressure  of  the  struggle 
for  existence.  Why  is  it  then  that  certain  species 
have  evolved  to  a  being  as  high  as  man,  while 
others  have  remained  at  a  more  rudimentary 
stage  of  life?  The  struggle  for  existence  cannot 
be  the  sole  cause  of  the  evolution  of  species. 
There  must  be  other  causes  which  we  do  not 
know. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  sociology,  however,  it 
is  not  this  biological  objection  which  is  of  the 
greatest  interest.  It  is  the  immense  leap  which 
Spencer  makes  in  applying  the  definite  analogy 
to  human  society.  He  speaks  of  the  struggle 
between  animals  and  then,  without  any  transition 
or  explanation,  says:  "Similarly  with  social 
organisms."  It  is  astonishing  to  find  an  eminent 
philosopher  making  such  an  elementary  error. 
This  is  an  example  of  the  kind  of  errors  of  which 
Darwin  complains  in  one  of  his  letters,  in  which  he 
said:  "How  curious  it  is  that  several  of  my  re- 

5 


66  The  Biological  Errors 

viewers  should  advance  such  wild  arguments 
.  .  .  and  should  bring  up  the  old  exploded  doctrine 
of  definite  analogies.  .  .  ."^ 

In  this  case  Spencer  has  not  exactly  forgotten 
the  existence  of  the  universe  but  he  has  disregarded 
one  of  the  most  widespread  facts  which  can  be 
observed  in  it, — that  living  beings  exist  in  it  in 
relationships  of  a  most  extraordinary  complexity, 
ranging  from  the  most  irreducible  antagonism 
to  the  most  absolute  solidarity.  To  jump  from 
the  conclusion  that  since  certain  relations  are 
established  between  animals  of  different  species, 
the  same  relations  ought  to  be  found  without  any 
modification  whatsoever  between  societies  of  the 
human  race,  is  to  make  an  assumption  which  is 
not  supported  by  science  or  reason.  Spencer  makes 
two  chief  conclusions  which  render  his  comparison 
entirely  false. 

j.        I.     He  compares  the  struggle  between  individuals 
V'  of  different  species  with  the  struggle  between  indi- 
viduals of  the  same  species; 

2.  He  compares  the  struggle  between  individuals 
to  the  struggle  between  collectivities. 

I.  The  struggle  between  individuals  of  differ- 
ent species  is  not  of  the  same  character  as  those 
between  individuals  of  the  same  species  and  can- 
not be  grouped  under  the  same  law  without 
further  examination.  If  we  consider  examples 
of  the  struggle  between  individuals  and  different 

'  Life  and  Letters  of  Darwin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  ill. 


Spencer's  Unscientific  Comparisons  67 

species,  as  in  the  case  of  the  microbe  which  preys 
upon  plants  and  animals,  or  carnivorous  animals 
which  prey  upon  herbivorous  animals,  we  see  that 
.  ithere  is  an  irreducible  antagonism  and  perpetual 
^hostility  between  individuals  of  such  different 
species.  The  life  of  the  predatory  animals  can 
only  be  maintained  by  the  death  of  their  prey. 
But  between  individuals  of  the  same  species,  we 
\  often  have  relations  which  are  diametrically 
'  opposite,  relations  of  alliance  and  association. 
To  proceed  from  the  struggles  of  microbes  and 
men,  of  herbs  and  cattle,  of  wolves  and  sheep, 
to  the  struggle  between  man  and  man,  without 
further  justification  than  the  statement  "similarly 
with  social  organisms"  although  characteristic  of 
much  of  the  distorted  "social  Darwinism,"  is  op- a 
posed  to  the  scientific  spirit  of  Darwin's  own  work. 
If  Spencer  had  wished  to  compare  the  battles 
of  animals  with  the  battles  of  human  beings,  he 
should  have  compared  the  combats  of  men  with 
the  combats  between  animals  of  the  same  species. 
The  combat  between  a  tiger  and  a  bull  is  not 
comparable  with  a  duel  between  two  men,  because 
the  tiger  and  the  bull  are  individuals  of  two  species 
which  are  not  associable  and  are  indeed  naturally 
antagonistic,  while  the  duellists  are  individuals 
of  the  same  species.  The  comparison  would  have 
been  more  exact  if  Spencer  had  compared  the 
relations  between  men  with  the  relations  betweeijA 
tigers.  In  this  case  he  would  have  been  dealing 
with  animals,  not  indeed  associated  in  any  perma- 


68  The  Biological  Errors 

nent  fashion,  but  at  least  of  the  same  species. 
But  as  soon  as  we  approach  the  concrete  reahty 
we  see  that  tigers  do  not  eat  each  other  and  that 
the  relations  between  individuals  of  the  same 
species  are  not  the  same  as  those  between  indi- 
viduals of  different  species.  Since  animals  of  the 
same  species  do  not  massacre  each  other,  Spencer 
has  no  justification  from  the  biological  analogy 
^  for  affirming  that  human  progress  would  have 
been  impossible  if  men  had  not  exterminated 
each  other. 

A  closer  analogy  would  be  to  compare  the  rela- 
tions between  men  with  the  relations  between  in- 
dividuals of  a  species  capable  of  association  such 
as  bees,  apes,  beavers,  monkeys,  etc.  But  when 
we  come  to  the  real  analogy  the  scene  changes 
entirely.  Not  only  do  we  see  that  the  individuals 
of  species  capable  of  association  do  not  devour  each 
other,  but  on  the  contrary  they  unite  for  common 
work ;  they  exchange  services,  and  as  a  result  they 
create  the  group  of  a  higher  degree  of  evolution 
which  is  called  a  society. 

2.  The  second  great  error  of  Spencer  is  to  com- 
pare the  struggle  between  individuals  of  the  same 
species  or  of  different  species,  not  with  that  of 
human  individuals  but  with  human  societies. 
The  fight  between  two  pugilists  of  different  races 
might  be  likened  in  some  manner  to  a  combat 
.between  a  lion  and  a  bull,  but  the  war  between  the 
English  and  Zulus,  between  the  Russians  and  the 
Japanese,  cannot  be  likened  in  any  definite  manner 


Biological  Analogies  Break  Down    69 

to  a  combat  between  a  lion  and  a  bull  or  even  to  a 
combat  between  two  lions.  The  combat  between 
two  individuals  (the  lion  and  the  bull  for  example) 
remains  in  the  domain  of  zoology.  The  combat 
between  the  Russians  and  the  Japanese  enters 
into  the  social  domain,  which  presupposes  the 
inter-action  of  an  enormous  number  of  facts — 
psychological,  economical,  political,  and  intellect- 
ual. Spencer's  phrase  ' '  similarly  with  social  organ- 
isms" constitutes  a  blind  leap  from  the  biological 
to  the  sociological  realm  which  is  not  justified  by 
any  logic. 

But  collective  combats  do  take  place  in  the 
animal  kingdom,  say  the  "social  Darwinists," 
and  these  combats  have  contributed  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  species.  It  is  known  that  the 
ants  wage  war  in  good  and  due  form.  Since  the 
ants  wage  war,  collective  combat  is  a  fact  of 
Nature,  runs  the  argument,  and  it  is  useless  to  try 
to  abolish  war  between  human  collectivities.  In 
fact,  it  is  worse  than  useless ;  it  would  be  disastrous 
to  civilization.  So  the  popular  advocates  of  the 
philosophy  of  force,  following  the  sociologists, 
base  their  case  on  these  "biological  laws"  and 
apply  it  to  the  modern  relations  between  human 
collectivities.    Thus  Bernhardi  says: 

The  knowledge,  therefore,  that  war  depends  on 
biological  laws  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  every 
attempt  to  exclude  it  from  international  relations 
must  be  demonstrably  untenable.     But  it  is  not  only 


4 


70  The  Biological  Errors 

a  biological  law,  but  a  moral  obligation,  and,  as  such, 
an  indispensable  factor  in  civilization.  ^ 

The  steps  of  logic  which  the  "social  Darwinists" 
disregard  in  making  their  definite  analogies  are 
astonishing.  It  is  necessary  to  prove  first  that  the 
evolution  of  species  has  been  the  result  of  the 
combats  which  they  have  waged  against  other 
species,  a  conclusion  which  is  still  subject  to 
doubt.  Second,  it  is  necessary  to  prove  that 
collective  combats,  is  well  as  individual  combats, 
have  contributed  to  biological  progress.  Passing 
on  then  to  the  case  of  the  ant,  it  is  necessary  to 
prove  that  they  have  bettered  their  organization 
and  that  they  therefore  have  progressed  as  the 
result  of  warfare  waged  between  colonies  of  ants. 
Finally  it  is  necessary  to  demonstrate  that  what 
is  true  of  the  ants  is  literally  applicable  to  man. 

The  ants  of  New  Zealand  cannot  enter  into 
communication  with  the  ants  of  England,  while, 
thanks  to  the  telegraph,  the  New  Zealanders  are 
in  communication  with  the  English.  Ants  cannot 
exchange  services  and  merchandise  from  ant 
colony  to  ant  colony.  A  scientific  discovery 
made  in  one  colony  is  not  communicated  immedi- 
ately to  the  other  colonies  of  ants  of  the  entire 
world.  The  intelligence  of  the  ants  may  be  so 
feeble  that  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  realize  the 
interests  which  extend  outside  of  their  own  colony, 
while    men    realize    perfectly    well    the    common 

^  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  p.  24. 


Differences  between  Ants  and  Men    71 

interests  which  exist  between  New  Zealand  or 
America  and  Europe.  The  ants  distributed  over 
the  entire  world  cannot  form  a  single  association. 
Human  collectivities  spread  over  the  entire  world 
can  do  this  very  easily.  There  is  an  enormous 
gulf  separating  ants  from  men.  The  points  of 
disagreement  are  much  greater  than  those  of 
agreement.  Even  if  it  were  proved  that  the 
battles  between  ant  colonies  have  improved  the 
species  of  ants  this  would  be  far  from  demonstrat- 
ing that  the  battles  between  nations  have  im- 
proved the  human  race.  The  wide  breach  between 
the  animal  world  and  human  society  presented 
in  this  concrete  illustration  makes  the  definite 
analogy  of  Spencer's  phrase  "similarly  with  so- 
cial organisms"  seem  extremely  superficial  and 
arbitrary. 

In  the  domain  of  zoology  we  think  of  the  struggle 
for  existence  as  an  extermination  between  antago- 
nistic species,  such  as  that  between  the  wolf  and 
the  sheep.  In  the  case  of  the  human  species, 
however,  the  struggle  is  thought  of  solely  as  an 
extermination  between  fellow-creatures,  Mr.  V. 
de  Lapouge  states  what  is  a  common  point  of 
view  as  follows : 

In  civilized  countries  man  has  no  more  enemies 
to  fear.  All  the  dangers  have  disappeared  and  the 
formidable  animals  have  been  destroyed.  He  does 
not  even  have  to  take  the  trouble  to  search  for  food. 
He  finds  it  at  the  grocery  store.  The  struggle  for 
existence    is  now    only   with   his   own    kind.   Homo 


72  The  Biological  Errors 

homini  lupus.  It  is  carried  on  only  by  social  acts, 
but  because  it  has  changed  its  methods  and  its  name, 
it  is  none  the  less  cruel  and  murderous.^ 

Mr.  de  Lapouge  has  overlooked  enemies  such 
as  the  microbe  of  tuberculosis  and  the  bacilli  of 
cholera  and  of  typhoid  fever,  which  men  may  fear 
even  in  civilized  countries.  Men  find  food  at  the 
grocery  store  on  the  condition  that  they  have 
something  to  give  in  exchange  to  the  merchant. 
The  necessity  of  having  this  something  to  give 
in  exchange  is  a  source  of  constant  care  of  which 
man  can  never  rid  himself. 

Why  is  it  considered  that  in  the  case  of  all  other 
animals  the  struggle  should  take  place  only  be- 
tween members  of  different  species,  while  in  the 
case  of  man  struggle  takes  place  only  between 
members  of  the  same  species?  The  reasons  for 
this  contradiction  is  found  in  a  number  of  interest- 
ing psychological  facts.  In  part,  it  is  due  to  the 
dramatic  character  of  war,  which,  being  relatively 
rare,  strikes  the  human  imagination  vividly, 
while  the  struggle  against  other  species  and  the 
physical  environment  which  goes  on  constantly 
comes  to  be  considered  so  natural  that  we  no 
longer  think  about  it.  Thus  struggle  becomes 
synonymous  with  the  combat  between  men  and 
between  m.en  alone,  so  much  so  that  it  is  sometimes 
denied,  as  we  have  seen  above,  that  this  word  may 
be  applied  to  the  efforts  necessary  to  adapt  the 

'  Les  selections  sociales,  Paris,  1896,  p.  199. 


No  Wars  among  Apes  73 

environment  to  our  needs.  And  in  part  the 
contradiction  is  due  to  a  striking  conflict  between 
the  social  instincts  and  the  growing  intelligence 
of  man. 

Among  the  anthropomorphic  apes  there  is 
nothing  which  resembles  our  wars  of  conquest  and 
our  armed  peace.  This  is  because  the  apes,  pos- 
sessing a  very  low  order  of  intelligence,  have  not 
been  able  to  create  organizations  so  vast  and 
perfect  as  ours.  The  association  of  apes  has  not 
passed  the  purely  rudimentary  phase  of  wandering 
troupes,  while  human  association  has  arrived  at 
the  phase  of  the  state,  of  nationality,  and  even  of 
the  group  of  civilizations.  It  is  only  because  of  his 
increased  intelligence,  therefore,  that  man  has 
been  able  to  wage  wars  of  conquest  and  to  establish 
the  perpetual  state  of  latent  war  called  armed 
peace,  between  individuals  of  the  same  species. 

If  we  ask  why  wolves  do  not  eat  each  other, 
the  answer  is  that  if  wolves  were  constantly 
attacking  their  own  kind  in  order  to  devour  them, 
the  wolf  species  would  have  ceased  to  exist  long 
ago.  We  do  not  know  how  instincts  are  trans- 
mitted by  heredity,  but  we  do  know  that  hereditary 
instincts  exist.  When  man  developed  from  earlier 
forms  he  possessed  necessarily  the  hereditary  in- 
stinct which  is  the  common  law  of  the  animal 
kingdom,  and  which  prevented  him  from  attacking 
his  own  kind.  This  instinct  is  found  not  only 
among  the  herbivorous  and  frugivorous  animals, 
which  cannot  eat  each  other,  but  even  among  the 


74  The  Biological  Errors 

carnivorous  animals.  This  instinct  must  have 
existed  in  man,  who  commenced  by  being  frugivo- 
rous.  But  in  proportion  as  the  intelHgence  of  man 
developed,  instinct  atrophied,  because  it  became 
less  useful. 

Thus  we  see  that  at  the  present  time  animals 
possess  very  valuable  instincts  which  we  unfortu- 
nately no  longer  possess,  or  which  unfortunately 
are  not  strong  enough.  There  must  have  been  an 
epoch  in  which  the  first  man  who  dared  to  attack 
his  fellow-creatures  committed  a  novel  act  requir- 
ing the  greatest  bravery,  and  this  act  was  only 
possible  on  account  of  the  enfranchisement  of  the 
human  spirit,  victorious  in  its  revolt  against  the 
hereditary  instinct.  The  man  who  committed 
this  act  was  greatly  deceived  in  this  special  case. 
In  his  real  interest  and  in  that  of  his  descendants, 
it  would  have  been  a  thousand  times  better  if  he 
had  followed  his  own  instinct,  which  would  have 
surely  led  to  happiness.  The  story  of  Cain  and 
Abel  in  Genesis  dramatizes  a  great  tragedy  which 
must  have  taken  place  at  some  time  in  the  history 
of  the  human  race.  We  do  not  know  at  what 
stage  of  his  descent  from  the  animal  world  it 
occurred,  but  in  any  case  we  can  see  that  it  is 
solely  as  a  result  of  his  superior  intelligence  that 
man  has  been  able  to  attack  his  own  kind. 

This  analysis  shows  that  there  is  an  enormous 
difference,  and  in  fact  an  opposition,  between  the 
sequence  of  zoological  phenomena  and  the  se- 
quence of  social  phenomena.     Let  us  admit  for 


Kropotkin's  Siberian  Observations   75 

the  sake  of  argument  that  the  struggle  between 
individuals  within  the  animal  kingdom  has  re- 
sulted in  the  survival  of  the  fittest  and  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  species.  In  this  case  war  is  the  cause 
and  perfection  the  effect.  But  in  the  human  race 
the  sequence  has  been  diametrically  opposite.  Here 
intellectual  perfection  has  rendered  war  possible 
between  men.  Here  it  is  perfection  which  has 
been  the  cause  and  war  the  effect.  Again  we  see 
that  it  is  anti-scientific  to  compare,  as  Spencer 
does,  phenomena  which  are  completely  different. 
The  struggle  for  existence  and  war  between 
members  of  the  same  species  cannot  be  considered 
as  identical  terms.  To  a  certain  extent  they  may 
even  be  said  to  be  contrary  and  opposed.  The 
real  struggle  is  that  against  the  physical  environ- 
ment, and  this  is  true  of  animals  as  of  men.  This 
fact  is  apparent  wherever  we  come  into  contact 
with  the  touchstone  of  real  life  and  direct  observa- 
tion. Here  is  the  evidence  of  Kropotkin,'  a  keen 
observer  and  careful  student  of  the  Darwinian 
theory : 

Two  aspects  of  animal  life  impressed  me  most 
during  the  journeys  which  I  made  in  my  youth  in 
Eastern  Siberia  and  Northern  Manchuria.  One  of 
them  was  the  extreme  severity  of  the  struggle  for 
existence  which  most  species  of  animals  have  to  carry 
on  against  an  inclement  Nature.  .  .  .  And  the  other 
was,  that  even  in  those  spots  where  animal  life  teemed 
in  abundance,  I  failed  to  find — although  I  was  eagerly 

*  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  p.  vii. 


76  The  Biological  Errors 

looking  for  it — that  bitter  struggle  for  the  means 
of  existence  among  animals  belonging  to  the  same 
species,  which  was  considered  by  most  Darwinists 
(though  not  always  by  Darwin  himself)  as  the 
dominant  characteristic  of  struggle  for  life,  and  the 
main  factor  of  evolution. 

The  terrible  snow-storms  which  sweep  over  the 
northern  portion  of  Eurasia  in  the  later  part  of  the 
winter,  and  the  glazed  frost  that  often  follows  them; 
the  frosts  and  the  snow-storms  which  return  every  year 
in  the  second  half  of  May,  when  the  trees  are  already  in 
full  blossom  and  insect  life  swarms  everywhere;  the 
early  frosts,  and,  occasionally,  the  heavy  snow-falls  in 
July  and  August,  which  suddenly  destroy  myriads  of 
insects,  as  well  as  the  second  broods  of  the  birds  in  the 
prairies ;  .  .  .  and  finally,  the  heavy  snow-falls,  early 
in  October,  which  eventually  render  a  territory  as 
large  as  France  and  Germany  absolutely  impracticable 
for  ruminants  and  destroy  them  by  the  thousand — 
these  were  the  conditions  under  which  I  saw  animal 
life  struggling  in  Northern  Asia.  They  made  me 
realize  at  an  early  date  the  overwhelming  importance 
in  Nature  of  what  Darwin  describes  as  "the  natural 
checks  to  over-multiplication,"  in  comparison  to  the 
struggle  between  individuals  of  the  same  species  for 
the  means  of  subsistence,  which  may  go  on  here  and 
there  to  some  limited  extent,  but  never  attains  the 
importance  of  the  former.  .  .  . 

Consequently,  when  my  attention  was  drawn 
later  on,  to  the  relations  between  Darwinism  and 
Sociology,  I  could  agree  with  none  of  the  works  and 
pamphlets  that  had  been  written  upon  this  important 
subject.  They  all  endeavoured  to  prove  that  Man, 
owing  to  his  higher  intelligence  and  knowledge,  may 


No  Progress  by  War  within  Species  TJ 

mitigate  the  harshness  of  the  struggle  for  life  between 
men;  but  they  all  recognize  at  the  same  time  that  the 
struggle  for  the  means  of  existence,  of  every  animal 
against  all  its  congeners,  and  every  man  against  all 
other  men,  was  "a  law  of  Nature."  This  view,  how- 
ever, I  could  not  accept,  because  I  was  persuaded  that 
to  admit  a  pitiless  inner  war  for  life  within  each 
species,  and  to  see  in  that  war  a  condition  of  progress, 
was  to  admit  something  which  not  only  had  not  yet 
been  proved,  but  also  lacked  confirmation  from  direct 
observation. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  when  terrible  snow-storms 
take  place  those  individuals  would  survive  which 
are  most  capable  of  withstanding  the  cold  {i.  e., 
those  which  are  best  adapted  to  the  physical 
environment);  that  those  least  able  to  withstand 
cold  would  perish;  and  that  thus  a  selection 
favourable  to  the  species  would  take  place.  The 
number  of  individuals  perishing  as  a  consequence 
of  the  severe  climate  is  much  greater  than  the 
number  perishing  as  the  result  of  attacks  not  only 
by  individuals  of  the  same  species,  but  even  by 
individuals  of  different  species.  In  the  first  place 
the  herbivorous  and  the  frugivorous  animals  can- 
not perish  on  account  of  attacks  by  individuals  of 
their  own  species  and  the  carnivorous  animals  do 
not  eat  each  other,  because  of  the  law  of  universal 
application,  that  force  follows  the  line  of  least 
resistance.  The  carnivorous  animals  prey  upon 
animals  more  feeble  than  themselves, — cats  upon 
mice,  tigers  upon  sheep  and  cattle,   etc.     It  is 


78  The  Biological  Errors 

therefore  a  fallacy  for  "social  Darwinism"  to 
assign  to  the  struggle  between  individuals  of  the 
same  species  the  chief  role  in  evolution.  In  reality 
this  r61e  is  zero  in  a  great  number  of  cases  (among 
the  herbivorous  and  frugivorous  animals  for 
example)  and  is  a  very  subordinate  role  in  almost 
all  cases. 

The  law  holds  true  for  men  as  well  as  for  animals. 
Its  application  in  human  society  is  made  clear  by 
another  illustration  from  Kropotkin : 

...  A  number  of  villages  in  South-East  Russia, 
the  inhabitants  of  which  enjoy  plenty  of  food,  .  .  . 
have  no  sanitary  accommodation  of  any  kind;  and 
seeing  that  for  the  last  eighty  years  the  birth-rate  was 
sixty  in  the  thousand,  while  the  population  is  now  what 
it  was  eighty  years  ago,  we  might  conclude  that  there 
has  been  a  terrible  competition  between  the  inhabi- 
tants. But  the  truth  is  that  from  year  to  year  the 
population  remained  stationary,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  one-third  of  the  new-born  died  before  reaching 
their  sixth  month  of  life;  one-half  died  within  the 
next  four  years,  and  out  of  each  hundred  born,  only 
seventeen  or  so  reached  the  age  of  twenty.  The 
newcomers  went  away  before  having  grown  to  be 
competitors.^ 

What  is  the  significance  of  the  expression  "the 
inhabitants  have  no  sanitary  accommodation  of 
any  kind?"  It  means  simply  that  they  do  not 
know  how  to  struggle  against  the  unfavourable 
conditions  of  their  physical  environment.     The 

'  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  p.  68. 


Struggle  Confused  with  Total  Death  79 

enormous  mortality  of  children  at  an  early  age  is 
caused  by  the  severity  of  the  climate,  or  the 
microbes  of  disease.  Although  the  men  in  this 
case  are  present  in  abundance,  the  competition 
between  men  exercises  no  influence  whatever  upon 
the  mortality  of  the  children.  The  proof  that 
the  high  infant  mortality  is  caused  by  unfavourable 
conditions  of  the  environment  is  given  by  the  fact 
that  infant  mortality  is  very  greatly  reduced  in 
countries  with  healthy  and  temperate  climates. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  mankind  as  well  as  that 
of  animals,  therefore,  if  the  struggle  for  existence 
improves  the  species,  it  is  the  struggle  against 
the  physical  environment  and  not  the  struggle 
between  fellow-creatures. 

A  third  important  error  of  the  philosophy  of    * 
force  is  due  to  an  analysis  which  is  too  simple  and 
observations  which  are  too  superficial;  struggle  is 
confounded  with  the  total  death  of  the  vanquished.    *• 
This  is  the  only  result  of  struggle  recognized  in 
"social  Darwinism"  but  the  facts  are  infinitely 
more   complex  in   Nature.     To   understand   the 
phenomena   we   have   to   divide   the   results   of 
struggle  into  those  which  lead  to  the  total  death 
of  the  vanquished,  and  those  which  lead  to  the 
diminution  of  vital  power  or  partial  death.     The 
struggle  which  leads  to  total  death  must  be  again 
divided  into   two  subdivisions — absorption    and    * 
elimination. 

Absorption  is  the  more  rapid  procedure  and  is    . 


8o  The  Biological  Errors 

found  more  often  in  the  animal  kingdom.  It 
consists  in  killing  a  being  in  order  to  absorb  it, 
as  when  a  lion  kills  and  eats  an  antelope.  The 
struggle  of  absorption  is  opposed  to  any  associa- 
tion between  the  victors  and  the  vanquished. 
The  only  relation  which  can  exist  between  them, 
is  that  of  an  absolute  and  unchangeable  antagon- 
ism. The  struggle  for  existence  by  absorption 
is  extremely  rare  between  animals  of  the  same 
species.  Neither  wolves  nor  tigers  eat  each  other. 
Men  could  not  do  so  as  long  as  they  were  a  fruit- 
eating  species.  When  fire  was  invented  it  became 
possible  to  eat  flesh  and  therefore  to  eat  each 
other,  but  cannibalism  was  practised  very  rarely, 
as  a  consequence  of  the  law  that  force  follows  the 
line  of  least  resistance.  Cannibalism  was  intro- 
duced into  the  human  species  at  a  later  epoch, 
when  the  species  had  already  arrived  at  a  certain 
degree  of  political  organization.  Cannibalism  has 
always  been  a  sporadic  and  rare  phenomenon. 
Neither  the  Egyptians  nor  the  Babylonians  nor 
the  Assyrians  were  acquainted  with  it.  Moreover, 
anthropology  shows  that  cannibalism  has  been 
practised  among  men  not  so  much  from  the  physi- 
ological motive  of  hunger  as  in  consequence  of  a 
mental  attitude — for  example,  the  belief  that  by 
eating  the  body  of  a  vanquished  enemy  the  con- 
queror would  acquire  certain  of  his  qualities,  such 
as  courage. 

In    comparing    the    struggle    between    human 
associations,  as  for  example  a  war  between  Ger- 


Absorption  and  Elimination         8i 

many  and  Denmark,  to  the  struggle  by  absorption, 
such  as  the  combat  between  a  Hon  and  a  gazelle, 
the  philosophy  of  force  becomes  involved  in 
several  fallacies.  The  chief  one  is  that  the  Ger- 
mans and  the  Danes  can  form  an  association  while 
the  lion  and  the  gazelle  cannot  form  an  association 
from  the  nature  of  the  combat.  In  order  to 
establish  the  analogy,  however,  the  philosophy  of 
force  falls  into  a  still  greater  error.  By  a  process 
of  mental  abstraction  it  makes  of  all  Germans  a 
single  being  equal  to  the  lion  and  of  all  the  Danes 
a  single  being  like  the  gazelle.  But  a  combat 
between  Germany  and  Denmark  is  an  impossi- 
bility. The  combat  can  take  place  between  some 
Germans  and  some  Danes  in  flesh  and  blood  who 
line  up  opposite  each  other  and  commence  to 
massacre  each  other.  As  soon  as  we  descend 
from  general  similes  to  consider  the  concrete 
realities,  it  is  evident  that  the  analogy  will  not 
stand  criticism.  If  the  struggle  for  existence 
takes  place  between  human  societies  it  must  be 
accomplished  by  processes  which  have  nothing 
in  common  with  physiological  absorption  between 
individuals  of  different  species  in  the  animal 
kingdom. 

The  process  of  elimination  is  practised  most 
often  among  plants.  It  consists  in  monopolizing 
the  necessities  of  life  in  such  a  way  as  to  force 
the  rival  to  die  of  starvation.  The  struggle  by 
elimination  takes  place  among  trees  which  struggle 
for  light  in  a  forest.     The  strongest  overshadow 


82  The  Biological  Errors 

the  weaker  and  take  away  their  sunshine.  This 
produces  at  first  atrophy  in  some  of  the  branches 
and  finally  the  death  of  the  entire  plant.  The 
struggle  by  elimination  can  also  be  practised 
among  animals,  not  only  among  the  herbivorous 
but  among  the  carnivorous  animals,  when  the 
stronger  animals  drive  away  the  weaker  from  the 
food  and  force  them  to  die  of  inanition. 

The  Darwinian  theory  has  found  in  the  process 
of  elimination  as  applied  in  sexual  selection,  one 
of  the  agencies  in  the  transformation  of  species, 
but  the  direct  action  of  the  process  of  elimination, 
both  as  regards  foodstuffs  and  as  regards  reproduc- 
tion, is  of  secondary  importance  in  the  human 
species.  As  regards  reproduction,  Darwin  pointed 
out  that  the  factor  often  works  in  the  reverse 
direction,  the  largest  number  of  children  coming 
from  the  feeble-minded  and  lowest  strata  of 
society.  ^ 

The  analogy  which  is  often  drawn  between  the 
struggle  for  existence  by  elimination  in  biology 
and  the  process  of  elimination  in  human  society 
fails  because  in  the  one  case  the  result  is  the  total 
death  of  the  conquered  while  in  society  the  result 
is  a  diminution  of  vital  power  or  partial  death. 
This  radical  difference  gives  rise  to  an  immense 
number  of  new  social  phenomena  which  constitutes 
a  new  social  kingdom,  so  different  is  it  from  the 
animal  or  plant  kingdom.  The  substitution  of 
partial  death  for  total  death  is  one  of  the  first 

*  See  The  Descent  of  Man,  chap,  v.,  p.  154. 


Diminution  of  Vital  Power         83 

processes  by  which  social  life  is  organized  in 
Nature.  When  the  result  of  a  struggle  between 
two  beings  is  no  longer  a  total  death,  even  deferred,  • 
of  the  vanquished,  but  solely  a  certain  diminution 
of  enjoyment,  the  conqueror  and  the  conquered 
can  live  alongside  each  other  for  the  normal  dura- 
tion of  their  existence.  As  we  shall  see  later, 
this  process  is  not  the  only  one.  Another  pro- 
cess, much  more  rapid  for  forming  societies, 
is    co-operation. 

The  scale  of  subordination  in  society  ranges 
from  the  difference  in  regard  to  food  supply 
to  that  of  intellect  or  sentiment.  In  respect 
to  food  supply  the  victor  can  obtain  a  more 
abundant  and  refined  nourishment  while  con- 
demning the  vanquished  to  a  less  abundant  and 
coarser  supply  of  food.  This  does  not  prevent 
the  vanquished  from  living  out  the  full  term  of 
his  life.  It  may  even  add  to  his  longevity.  The 
same  things  may  occur  in  regard  to  clothing  and 
shelter.  The  conqueror  may  live  in  a  splendid 
palace  while  the  vanquished  can  only  imperfectly 
shelter  himself  from  the  severities  of  the  climate. 
However,  the  inhabitant  of  a  hut  may  reach  as 
ripe  an  old  age  as  the  inhabitant  of  a  mansion. 
Finally  we  may  have  a  difference  of  satisfaction 
in  regard  to  pride.  The  conqueror  may  obtain 
the  applause  and  the  honours  which  are  with- 
held from  the  vanquished.  This  may  prove  a 
privation  to  him  but  it  does  not  prevent  him  from 
living  out  the  full  time  of  his  normal  Ufe.     It 


84  The  Biological  Errors 

means  that  he  must  be  content  with  the  second 
rank  instead  of  the  first. 

«  From  the  moment  when  partial  death  replaces 
total  death  as  the  result  of  struggle  we  have,  more- 
over, a  new  element  entering  in, — the  possibility 

^  of  reversal.  Thus  a  man  who  is  beaten  in  the 
economic  struggle  by  a  competitor  may  be  reduced 
from  an  income  of  $5000  a  year  to  an  income  of 

'  $2000  a  year,  but  he  may  discover  another  process 
which  will  enable  him  to  regain  his  income  of 
$5000  or  even  increase  it.  Nothing  analogous  to 
this  is  possible  in  the  struggles  where  total  death 
takes  place,  as  in  the  case  of  the  gazelle  eaten  by 
the  lion  or  the  tree  cut  off  from  the  sunshine  by 
the  shadow  of  its  neighbour.  The  analogy  of  the 
biological  struggle  of  elimination,  resulting  in  the 
total  death  of  the  conquered,  in  which  all  associa- 
tion is  of  course  impossible,  does  not  apply  to 
the  economic  struggle  of  human  society,  resulting 
only  in  a  diminution  of  vital  powers,  but  in  which 
association  still  continues  possible  and  is  indeed  a 
normal  condition. 

If  the  "social  Darwinists"  had  wished  to  make 
a  true  comparison  between  biological  and  social 
phenomena,  they  should  have  compared  the 
struggles  between  human  associations  with  the 
struggles  within  the  same  organism.  Here  we 
have  numerous  and  more  exact  analogies.  The 
discoveries  of  modern  physiology,  made  possible 
by  the  perfection  of  the  microscope,  have  shown 
us  that  the  cells  of  our  bodies  engage  in  a  desperate 


Cell-Struggles  in  Same  Organism    85 

struggle.  The  combats  between  cells  resemble 
the  combats  of  two  citizens  within  a  well-organized 
state,  and  the  result  is  not  total  death  but  partial 
death  of  the  vanquished  cells,  i.e.,  simply  a  lessen- 
ing of  vitality.  The  organ  in  which  the  cells 
secure  a  larger  share  of  the  blood  supply  increases 
in  size,  while  the  organ  or  the  tissue  which  is 
vanquished  is  enfeebled;  thus  an  athlete  who 
constantly  uses  his  arms  develops  very  large  bi- 
ceps, whereas  a  man  who  uses  his  brain  intensively 
employs  most  of  his  blood  supply  and  energy  to 
feed  the  brain  cells,  while  his  biceps  remain  feeble. 
Cells  within  an  organism  may  be  compared 
legitimately  to  men  in  human  society.  They 
are  opposed  to  each  other  in  a  certain  measure, 
but  in  a  more  important  way  they  are  allied  to  each 
other  and  depend  upon  each  other.  The  signifi- 
cant thing  is  that  the  cells  do  not  attack  each 
other,  and  alliance  in  human  society  consists 
exactly  in  this  modification  of  the  process  of 
struggle,  the  abandonment  of  attack  against  one's 
neighbour. 

Another  most  instructive  analogy  between  the 
phenomena  within  an  organism  and  the  pheno- 
mena of  social  life  can  be  found  in  the  researches 
on  cell  life  by  Metchnikov  and  other  naturalists. 
These  have  shown  that  there  are  in  the  human 
body  errant  cells  which  have  two  principal  func- 
tions :  (i)  that  of  combating  the  microbes  of  disease 
which  we  take  in  by  respiration  and  in  other  ways ; 
and  (2)  that  of  doing,  we  might  almost  say,  the 


86  The  Biological  Errors 

police  work  of  our  body,  in  destroying  cells  which 
are  worn  out  and  decomposed.  The  macrophages 
which  perform  this  latter  function  employ  the  pro- 
cess of  total  absorption.  This  process  of  killing 
and  destroying  harmful  cells  is  quite  different, 
however,  from  the  process  of  complete  destruc- 
tion between  naturally  antagonistic  beings  such  as 
the  wolf  and  sheep.  The  destruction  performed 
by  the  macrophages  resembles  in  certain  aspects 
much  more  the  execution  of  a  criminal  within 
the  state.  The  total  death  of  the  decomposed 
cells,  like  that  of  the  criminal,  result  in  the  main- 
tenance of  the  association.  It  is  an  act  of  bio- 
logical justice.  Both  biological  justice  and  social 
justice,  without  being  identical,  are  certainly  anal- 
ogous because  they  have  the  same  object — the 
maintenance  of  the  association. 

We  see  then  that  there  are  certain  forms  of 
struggle  which  are  normal  in  society, — those  which 
operate,  by  the  special  nature  of  their  processes, 
to  maintain  the  association.  If  all  struggles  led 
to  the  destruction  of  the  association,  societies 
would  never  have  been  formed  on  the  earth.  Of 
course,  the  macrophages  are  not  animated  by  a 
conscious  desire  to  suppress  the  decomposed  ele- 
ments in  order  to  maintain  the  health  of  the 
entire  organism.  Sometimes  the  macrophages  are 
deceived  and  attack  healthy  cells,  but  these  are 
strong  enough  to  prevent  the  macrophages  from 
conquering  them,  while  the  enfeebled  cells  suc- 
cumb.    By  the  complex  play  of  these  attacks  and 


True  Nature  of  Social  Struggles     87 

this  resistance,  a  general  equilibrium  is  obtained 
and  the  organism  remains  vigorous.  If  the  equilib- 
rium is  lost  the  process  of  dissociation  commences 
and  results  in  death.  In  an  analogous  way  the 
same  phenomena  are  reproduced  in  human  society. 
If  the  people  prevent  the  ruling  classes  from 
abusing  their  power  and  if  the  governments  are 
able  to  compel  citizens  to  respect  the  rights 
of  their  fellow-citizens,  the  community  remains 
healthy  and  vigorous.  If  the  rulers  become 
despotic,  or  the  citizens  anarchistic,  dissociation 
commences  and  the  collectivity  easily  becomes 
dislocated. 

The  militarists  are  therefore  right  in  saying, 
that  struggle  is  a  universal  law  of  Nature.  It  takes 
place  not  only  between  the  stars  in  the  celestial 
spaces,  but  also  between  the  cells  in  the  human 
body  and  between  men  within  society, — but  the 
processes  by  which  this  universal  struggle  operates 
are  immensely  varied.  If  we  wish  to  compare 
the  processes  in  the  different  domains  in  which  the 
phenomena  take  place,  it  is  necessary  to  do  so 
with  scrupulous  care  and  close  attention  not  only 
to  their  points  of  resemblance,  but  also  to  their 
differences.  To  consider  only  the  processes  which 
result  in  total  death,  and  to  ignore  those  which 
result  in  partial  death  is  an  incomplete  and 
unilateral  view,  and  is  therefore  anti-scientific 
because  science  demands  first  the  recognition 
of  all  the  phenomena  which  are  accessible  to 
intelligence,  and  then  their  final  generalization. 


88  The  Biological  Errors 

The  fourth  biological  error  of  the  philosophy  of 
*  force  consists  in  its  blindness  to  the  true  nature 
of  social  struggles.  According  to  this  philosophy 
they  are  based  uniquely  upon  physiological 
phenomena,  such  as  collective  homicide.  This  is 
»-never  the  case.  All  social  facts,  without  excep- 
tion, can  be  reduced  to  psychic  facts.  All  political 
I  *  and  social  institutions  are  the  results  of  ideas,  and 
the  struggle  which  goes  on  is  a  struggle  between 
ideas.  It  is  an  illustration  of  how  little  social 
thinking,  even  of  the  most  elementary  character, 
is  done  by  the  human  race,  that  so  few  persons 
have  grasped  the  truth,  one  of  the  primary  axioms 
in  sociology,  that  the  character  of  social  institu- 
tions depends  upon  the  character  of  social  ideas. 
Social  life  in  the  last  analysis  is  a  series  of  actions 
taken  by  a  certain  number  of  individuals.  The 
genesis  of  social  institutions  is  exactly  the  same 
as  the  genesis  of  individual  action.  In  the  case 
of  the  individual,  to  take  a  common  illustration, 
suppose  a  man  goes  for  a  walk  in  Central  Park. 
This  is  only  possible  on  one  condition,  that  he 
represents  in  his  mind  a  picture  of  Central  Park. 
If  this  does  not  take  place  the  idea  of  going  for  a 
walk  in  the  park  does  not  come  to  him.  Thus  the 
physiological  movements  made  in  walking  through 
the  park  can  only  be  effected  if  they  have  been  pre- 
ceded by  certain  psychic  movements.  Everything 
which  eventually  becomes  a  reality  in  action  has 
been  first  a  mental  representation,  an  ideal.  In 
society  the  process  may  be  illustrated  by  a  change 


All  Institutions  the  Result  of  Ideas  89 

in  political  institutions.  Suppose  that  at  a  certain 
moment  a  man  pictures  to  himself  a  political 
condition,  not  yet  existent,  e.g.,  parliamentary 
institutions  in  an  absolute  monarchy.  This  man 
carries  through  a  certain  series  of  measures  and 
obtains  the  desired  result.  The  country  passes 
from  an  absolute  regime  to  a  constitutional 
regime.  This  change  is  impossible  if  at  some  given 
moment  the  constitutional  regime  has  not  existed 
in  the  state  of  an  idea  and  a  future  representation 
in  someone's  mind.  But  a  mental  representation 
is  a  series  of  psychic  changes.  All  institutions, 
then,  are  necessarily  preceded  by  psychic  changes, 
by  ideas. 

In  the  case  of  social  or  collective  facts  the  psychic 
movements  are  complicated  by  another  element — 
propaganda.  It  is  not  sufficient  that  a  single  indi- 
vidual in  a  State  which  is  an  absolute  monarchy 
should  conceive  of  constitutional  institutions  and 
desire  to  apply  them.  It  is  necessary  that  a 
large  number  of  persons,  the  majority  of  the  people 
or  at  least  the  majority  of  the  ruling  class,  should 
desire  these  new  institutions.  The  inventor  of 
the  constitutional  idea  then,  if  we  may  use  the 
expression,  must  commence  by  communicating 
his  ideas  to  those  around  him.  This  gives  rise  to  a 
representation  of  a  constitutional  regime  in  other 
brains  like  that  which  he  already  possesses  in  his 
own.  Then  he  must  arouse  a  desire  and  a  will 
to  realize  it.  When  the  agreement  of  wills  is 
put  into  operation  the  new  institution  becomes 


90  The  Biological  Errors 

an  accomplished  fact.  However,  the  means  by 
which  the  inventor  propagates  his  idea  is  a  series 
of  inter-psychic  acts.  The  human  institution  is  a 
series  of  similar  individual  movements  of  the 
second  degree  of  complexity.  The  first  phase 
consists  in  the  internal  representation  of  the  new 
human  institution,  and  this  representation  is  then 
communicated  from  one  individual  to  other  in- 
dividuals, in  the  second  phase. 

International  actions  are  by  definition  only  a 
modification  of  human  institutions,  and  follow 
the  same  course  as  domestic  political  action.  If 
Europe,  which  has  been  divided  into  twenty-five 
sovereign  states,  under  a  system  of  complete 
anarchy,  in  which  any  state  may  declare  war  at 
any  minute,  should  be  united  into  a  federation, 
what  would  this  signify?  It  would  mean  that  the 
twenty-five  European  states  would  give  a  different 
organization  to  their  mutual  relations  than  that 
which  has  heretofore  existed.  But  this  different 
organization  would  be  preceded  by  an  ideal 
representation  and  by  propaganda  from  one  in- 
dividual to  another,  as  in  the  case  of  institu- 
tional changes  within  a  nation:  the  law  would 
be  the  same.  Ideas,  therefore,  are  the  source  of 
institutions. 

It  seems  difficult  to  contest  the  truth  of  this 

social  mechanism,  but  if  this  analysis  is  correct, 

the  philosophy  of  force  fails  completely.     How 

I-   can  it  be  maintained  that  the  progress  of  the 

,  human  race  is  caused  by  collective  homicide  when 


Ideas  the  True  Cause  of  Progress   91 

it  becomes  manifest  that  progress  is  caused  by 
better  social  institutions,  and  that  the  institutions 
do  not  arise  from  the  homicide  but  from  psychic 
movements,  from  mental  representations. 

Suppose  we  have  two  groups  of  human  beings 
arranged  in  opposing  armies,  who  commence  to 
massacre  each  other.  If  we  take  the  imaginary 
case  in  which  the  mutual  massacre  is  complete  so 
that  not  a  single  survivor  remains,  it  is  evident 
that  there  would  be  no  social  progress,  because 
there  would  be  no  society.  If  survivors  remain, 
progress  depends  uniquely  on  the  institutions 
which  govern  them.  If  these  institutions  are 
more  perfect  after  than  before  the  battle,  there 
will  be  progress,  but  if  they  are  less  perfect,  there 
will  be  retrogression. 

After  the  first  Balkan  War  the  condition  of  the 
people  of  Macedonia  had  improved  because  they 
had  been  freed  from  the  yoke  of  Turkey.  After 
the  second  Balkan  War  their  condition  was  made 
worse,  with  the  whole  country  full  of  refugees  and 
blackened  with  hatred.  In  the  one  case  there 
was  progress  and  in  the  other  retrogression.  It  is , 
a  complete  self-deception  to  consider  the  progress 
realized  sometimes  after  war  and  to  neglect  en- 
tirely the  retrogression  which  follows  so  often. 
The  claim  that  collective  homicide  is  the  cause 
of  progress  is  absolutely  unsustainable.  We  must 
take  account  of  the  fact  that  collective  homicide 
is  followed  sometimes  by  progress,  sometimes  by 
retrogression.     However,  if  this  is  so,  it  is  a  pure 


92  The  Biological  Errors 

piece  of  sophistry  to  maintain  that  collective 
homicide,  in  the  case  in  which  it  is  followed  by 
progress,  is  the  cause  of  that  progress.  In  science 
one  phenomenon  is  held  to  be  the  cause  of  the 
second  only  when  it  is  always  and  everywhere 
followed  by  the  second.  Since  collective  homicide 
does  not  always  and  everywhere  precede  progress, 
collective  homicide  is  not  the  cause  of  progress. 
On  the  contrary,  since  more  perfect  political 
institutions  always  precede  progress,  it  is  the 
more  perfect  political  institutions  which  are  the 
cause  of  progress.  But  political  institutions  are 
the  result  of  certain  cerebral  movements ;  therefore 
it  is  these  cerebral  movements  and  not  the  muscu- 
lar movements  in  the  process  of  collective  homi- 
cide, which  assure  progress. 

The  roundabout  way  by  which  the  philosophy 
of  force  seeks  to  escape  this  conclusion  is  familiar. 
It  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  collective  homicide 
is  the  direct  cause  of  progress.  In  the  evening 
after  a  battle  when  a  hundred  thousand  men  lie 
upon  the  ground,  some  of  them  killed,  the  others 
groaning  in  agony,  it  is  difficult  to  pretend  at  that 
very  moment  that  the  slaughter  and  the  suffering 
produces  progress.  Even  the  distorted  "social 
Darwinism"  does  not  sustain  such  a  preposterous 
proposition,  but  the  "social  Darwinists"  affirm 
that  it  is  the  preparation  for  this  savagery  which 
furthers  progress,  because  the  people  which  are  the 
better  prepared  obtain  the  victory.  The  prepara- 
tion for  war,  it  is  contended,  requires  a  series  of 


War  a  Pre-Social  Fact  93 

actions  which  refine  the  intelligence,  therefore 
collective  homicide  refines  intelligence  and  conse- 
quently makes  progress.  This  neglects  the  princi- 
pal consideration,  that  everything  depends  on  what 
the  conqueror  does  after  the  victory.  If  he  estab- 
lishes a  better  set  of  institutions,  it  is  these  insti- 
tutions, and  not  the  battle,  which  cause  progress. 
Moreover  if  the  sum  of  intellectual  effort  employed 
in  preparing  for  war  had  been  employed  directly 
to  better  the  condition  of  the  human  race,  this 
betterment  would  have  proceded  more  rapidly. 
The  straight  line  does  not  cease  to  be  the  shortest 
path  between  two  points  when  we  enter  into  the 
domain  of  sociology. 

The  object  of  struggle  is  to  better  one's  condi- 
tion. Since  the  condition  of  the  individual  in 
society  can  only  be  bettered  by  perfecting  institu- 
tions the  struggle  in  the  sociological  domain  can 
only  take  place  by  inter-psychic  processes.  Homi- 
cide, not  being  an  inter-psychic  relation,  cannot 
enter  into  the  category  of  social  facts.  Homicide 
is  a  pre-social  fact.  It  is  the  natural  and  inevit- 
able form  of  the  struggle  between  individuals  who 
have  not  yet  formed  an  association  or  who  are 
prevented  by  their  organic  constitution  from 
associating  (as  in  the  case  of  the  wolf  and  the 
sheep).  From  another  point  of  view  individual 
and  collective  homicide  are  both  anti-social.  They 
arrest  the  course  of  development  of  society,  and 
the  interrupted  progress  must  be  taken  up  after 
the   battle.     The   actual   setback   to   all    social 


94  The  Biological  Errors 

reform  is  only  less  injurious  than  the  eugenic 
setback  of  the  race  caused  by  the  reverse  selection 
of  war,  which  kills  off  the  best  of  each  nation. 
And  most  disastrous  of  all  is  the  effect  of  war, 
both  on  the  victors  and  the  vanquished,  in  the 
increase  of  militarism,  leading  often  to  a  form 
of  despotism,  which  means  a  curtailment  of  the 
liberty  and  a  contraction  of  the  life  of  the 
individual. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  struggle  of  political 
parties  maintains  social  activities.  Activity  is  life, 
therefore  this  struggle  leads  to  progress.  This  is 
true  but  it  is  necessary  to  analyse  the  phenomena 
more  accurately.  The  struggle  of  political  par- 
ties means  in  the  last  analysis  the  existence  of  lib- 
erty, that  is,  the  absolute  respect  by  each  citizen 
of  the  rights  of  his  neighbour.  In  other  terms  it 
means  the  suppression  of  homicide  and  of  violence. 
If  the  struggle  of  parties  is  of  value,  it  is  be- 
cause this  struggle  substitutes  an  intellectual  com- 
bat (propaganda,  agitation,  electoral  activities, 
etc.)  for  the  biological  combats  which  consist  in 
slaughter.  If  the  parties  recur  to  homicide,  we 
no  longer  have  a  struggle  of  parties  but  a  civil 
war.  And  no  one  affirms  that  civil  war  in  general 
causes  the  progress  of  the  human  race. 

Political  struggles  take  place  also  between  the 
government  and  the  governed.  As  long  as  these 
remain  in  the  intellectual  field,  they  are  fruitful. 
The  party  in  power  proposes  one  program  and  the 
opposition  another.     But  as  soon  as  the  struggle 


Political  Struggles  Fruitful         95 

between  the  government  and  the  governed  takes 
place  by  biological  processes  (shootings  and  hang- 
ings on  the  side  of  the  State,  lynching  and  terror- 
ism on  the  side  of  the  citizens),  life  and  progress 
are  arrested,  savagery  and  misery  advance  at  a 
t'emendous  rate.  The  true  nature  of  a  social 
struggle  which  leads  to  progress  is  intellectual,  it 
is  the  struggle  of  ideas. 

The  biological  argument  for  war  breaks  down 
therefore,  as  soon  as  we  submit  it  to  the  test  of 
a  critical  analysis. 

Let  us  see  how  the  sociological  theories  of  the 
philosophy  of  force  will  bear  the  searchlight  of 
analysis  and  reason. 


M 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  GENERAL  SOCIOLOGICAL  ERRORS 


AN  owes  his  dominant  position  in  the  uni- 


increased  his  productive  power  enormously  by 
practising  mutual  aid  and  the  division  of  labour. 
Language,  literature,  science,  all  civilization  re- 
sults from  the  fact  that  man  is  a  member  of 
society,  that  he  co-operates  with  his  fellow-men. 
The  growth  of  communication  and  interdependence 
has  bound  the  human  race  into  one  social  organism. 
But  this  great  fact  of  association,  fully  as  impor- 
tant and  as  universal  as  the  fact  of  struggle,  is 
entirely  ignored  by  the  philosophy  of  force.  This 
is  an  error  in  the  field  of  sociology  which  is  as 
important  as  the  error  of  ignoring  the  existence  of 
the  physical  universe  in  the  realm  of  biology.  The 
consequences  of  co-operation  are  so  important  for 
any  true  theory  of  human  relationships  that  an 
entire  chapter'  has  been  devoted  to  their  con- 
sideration, and  nothing  further  need  be  said  at  the 
present  time  of  this  colossal  error  of  the  philosophy 
of  force. 

'  See  Chapter  X.  on  Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature. 
96 


Vital  Circulation  Makes  Association  97 

The  second  great  social  error  of  the  philosophy 
of  force,  is  in  regard  to  the  limits  of  association. 
The  cause  of  progress  is  held  to  be  homicide 
between  societies,  but  never  homicide  within 
societies.     Thus  General  von  Bernhardi  says': 

The  State  alone,  so  Schleiermacher  once  taught, 
gives  the  individual  the  highest  degree  of  life.  .  .  . 
To  expand  the  idea  of  the  State  into  that  of  humanity, 
and  thus  to  entrust  apparently  higher  duties  to  the 
individual,  leads  to  error,  since  in  the  human  race 
conceived  as  a  whole,  struggle  and,  by  implication, 
the  most  essential  vital  principle  would  be  ruled  out. 
Any  action  in  favour  of  collective  humanity  outside 
the  limits  of  the  State  and  nationality  is  impossible. 

The  boundaries  of  a  State  are  supposed  to  mark 
the  limits  of  association.  Within  these  limits 
struggle  and  collective  homicide  are  harmful,  but 
beyond  these  limits  struggle  and  collective  homi- 
cide constitute  the  causes  of  the  progress  of  the 
human  race.  This  makes  it  necessary  to  consider 
the  nature  of  association  and  its  limits. 

The  true  nature  of  association  can  best  be  under- 
stood by  studying  it  in  its  simple  form  in  biology. 
The  hydra  or  fresh- water  polyp,  for  example, 
which  has  the  form  of  a  simple  tube,  is  furnished 
with  a  set  of  vibrating  cilia  which  force  a  current 
of  water  into  the  mouth  of  the  tube,  and  from  this 
water  the  cells  in  the  interior  derive  their  nourish- 
ment-    This  illustrates  the  most  elementary  form 

'  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  p.  25. 
7 


98     The  General  Sociological  Errors 

of  vital  circulation.  The  cells  at  the  mouth  of  the 
tube  transmit  to  those  in  the  interior  a  raw  pro- 
duct which  has  not  undergone  any  change.  Higher 
in  the  biological  scale  the  process  is  not  so  simple. 
The  cells  differentiate  themselves  more  and  more. 
They  specialize  upon  widely  different  functions 
and  exchange  the  products  of  their  activities,  but 
it  is  always  the  phenomena  of  exchange,  the  vital 
circulation,  which  constitutes  association. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  distance  plays  only 
a  subordinate  role;  nearness  may  facilitate  the 
vital  circulation  between  the  parts,  but  it  is  the 
vital  circulation  itself  which  is  the  essential  of 
association. 

Two  living  beings  placed  side  by  side  without 
any  vital  circulation  between  them  form  separate 
individual  organisms,  and  they  might  as  well  live 
on  opposite  extremities  of  the  earth.  A  bed  of 
oysters,  for  example,  does  not  form  a  society. 

As  we  pass  to  the  higher  realm  of  the  biological 
scale,  vital  circulation  passes  through  innumerable 
forms  and  results  in  an  ever  increasing  interde- 
pendence of  parts  so  that  in  the  highest  forms  the 
solidarity  becomes  so  great  that  all  parts  suffer 
with  the  suffering  of  any  one,  and  if  the  suffering 
of  one  part  becomes  too  acute,  the  death  of  the 
entire  organism  necessarily  results. 

Biology  and  sociology  form  a  single  science 
divided  into  two  vast  provinces.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  at  what  precise  point  biological  phenomena 
end    and    sociological    phenomena    begin.     The 


The  Limits  of  Association  99 

phenomena  which  are  found  in  the  association  of 
cells  are  paralleled  by  the  phenomena  of  the 
association  of  individuals.  It  is  vital  circulation 
which  forms  societies,  just  as  it  forms  biological 
organisms. 

Within  the  human  species  vital  circulation  con- 
sists in  the  exchange  of  services  and  takes  on  three 
principal  forms — the  displacement  of  men,  the 
displacement  of  goods,  and  the  transmission  of 
ideas.  The  displacement  of  men  is  illustrated  by 
the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  tourists  who  go  from 
America  to  Europe  each  year,  and  by  the  migratory 
labour  which  has  become  so  striking  a  phenome- 
non of  modern  industrial  life.  The  displacement 
of  goods  constitutes  commerce.  The  transmission 
of  ideas  may  take  place  through  material  objects 
(books,  reviews,  newspapers,  letters),  by  means  of 
men  (preachers,  lecturers,  professors,  etc.),  or  by 
means  of  electricity  (telegraph,  cable,  telephone, 
wireless) . 

The  limits  of  association  are  determined  by  the 
limits  of  interdependence,  and  these  limits  are 
determined  by  the  vital  circulation.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  concrete  reality  the  whole  world  is 
a  unity  in  modern  times  and  the  entire  human  race 
forms  one  social  organism.  The  failure  of  the 
wheat  crop  in  India  or  floods  in  China  raises  the 
cost  of  living  all  over  the  world.  A  scientific 
discovery  or  a  cure  for  disease  made  in  the  uni- 
versities of  Germany  or  Japan  becomes  available 
almost  instantly  to  the  scientists  of  every  nation. 


100  The  General  Sociolosrical  Errors 


^-i; 


t>' 


The  appearance  of  the  bubonic  plague  in  Asia 
compels  every  country  of  Europe  and  America  to 
take  precautions  against  its  spread.  When  the  first 
Balkan  War  broke  out  in  south-eastern  Europe  in 
19 1 2  the  scarcity  of  capital,  the  calling  in  of  credits, 
and  the  stagnation  of  trade  in  Europe  caused 
banks  to  fail  in  Brazil  and  other  countries  in  South 
America,  and  unemployed  men  to  walk  the  streets 
of  Chicago  and  New  York,  so  delicate  is  the 
financial  nervous  system  of  the  modern  world. 
The  Austrian  Archduke  Ferdinand  is  assassinated 
in  the  capital  of  Bosnia  and  men  begin  to  murder 
each  other,  not  only  all  over  Europe,  but  in  the 
heart  of  Africa,  on  the  shores  of  Asia,  and  on  the 
islands  of  the  Pacific.  If  the  British  Isles  were 
cut  off  from  the  vital  circulation  for  any  con- 
siderable period  of  time,  three-fourths  of  the  Brit- 
ish people  would  starve  to  death,  since  Great 
Britain  produces  foodstuffs  enough  to  supply  only 
one-fourth  of  her  population. 

In  the  face  of  these  concrete  realities  it  is  im- 
possible to  contend  that  the  limits  of  association 
are  marked  by  the  boundaries  of  the  State.  More- 
over it  can  be  shown  that  the  State,  far  from 
corresponding  to  any  concrete  realities,  is  an  ab- 
stract conception,  clearly  subjective  in  character. 
The  boundaries  of  the  State  change  so  rapidly  that 
a  map  of  Europe,  only  a  few  years  old  is  practically 
worthless.  The  distinctive  characteristic  of  a 
State  is  sovereignty,  but  this  is  such  an  intangible 
quality  that  it  is  impossible  in  many  cases  to 


Advantages  in  Proportion  to  Ext:en.r  jci 

decide  whether  a  State  is  sovereign  or  not.  Is 
Canada,  for  example,  a  sovereign  State?  In 
international  law  the  question  would  be  answered 
in  the  negative,  yet  it  is  free  to  make  its  own  tariff, 
its  own  laws  and  conduct  its  own  affairs,  just  as 
though  it  were  an  independent  State.  Is  Persia 
an  independent  State?  In  accordance  with  the 
answer  to  this  question,  which  depends  upon 
subjective  impressions,  the  boundaries  of  Russia 
and  of  the  British  Empire  enlarge  or  contract. 
Yet  according  to  these  subjective  impressions, 
corresponding  to  no  concrete  realities,  collective 
homicide  is  in  the  one  case  the  cause  of  progress 
and  in  the  other  a  disaster,  since  it  constitutes  in 
one  case  a  foreign  war,  and  in  the  other  a  civil 
war.  What  is  the  essential  difference  which 
would  make  a  war  between  England  and  Scotland 
contribute  to  the  advance  of  civilization  before  the 
countries  were  united,  but  not  afterward? 

It  is  because  the  philosophy  of  force  ignores  the* 
existence  of  the  universe  and  the  fact  of  association 
based  on  concrete  realities  that  the  artificial  and 
oftentimes  subjective  limits  of  the  State  are  falsely 
considered  to  be  the  limits  of  association  instead 
of  the  true  limits,  which  are  marked  by  interde- 
pendence and  the  vital  circulation.  It  is  the 
struggle  against  the  physical  environment  which 
impels  men  to  associate  themselves  whether  in  the 
town  or  city,  where  they  desire  to  have  paved 
streets,  electric  lighting,  and  proper  sanitation,  or 
in  the  larger  units  of  the  province  and  State,  where 


1(32  The  General  Sociological  Errors 

they  associate  in  order  to  obtain  better  commu- 
nications, justice,  and  the  security  which  will 
enable  them  to  carry  on  their  activities  more  effec- 
tively. The  philosophy  of  force  fails  to  realize 
that  vital  circulation,  the  division  of  labour  and 
association  are  advantageous  in  proportion  to  the 
extent  of  the  association,  and  that  the  human 
race  would  reach  its  highest  possible  degree  of 
happiness  and  prosperity  if  the  limits  of  associa- 
tion were  extended  to  include  all  mankind  and  to 
coincide  with  the  objective  realities,  vital  circula- 
tion and  interdependence, — instead  of  stopping  at 
the  artificial  and  subjective  boundaries  of  the 
State. 

The  great  war  itself  has  contributed  towards  the 
breaking  down  of  the  old  idea  of  States  as  sovereign 
and  independent  units.  It  has  been  found  that 
no  nation  in  Europe  can  rely  for  its  security  and 
defense  upon  its  own  military  and  naval  forces, 
but  must  depend  upon  alliances,  ententes,  and 
agreements  which  it  makes  with  other  nations, 
surrendering  in  the  process  a  large  part  of  its 
sovereignty  in  the  questions  of  war  and  peace. 
Even  the  old  fiction  of  the  philosophy  of  force  that 
association  within  the  States  is  limited  by  natural 
antagonisms  has  been  shown  to  be  false.  On  the 
side  of  the  Allies,  for  example,  English,  French,  and 
Russians,  Indians,  Turcomen,  Egyptians,  Algerians, 
Japanese,  Bengalese,  every  possible  combination 
of  race,  language,  and  religion,  white,  yellow, 
brown,  and  black  skins  have  been  fighting  side  by 


Humanity  a  Single  Association    103 

side.  England  has  made  common  cause  with  its 
hereditary  enemy  France  and  its  great  autocratic 
rival  Empire  of  Russia,  despite  a  century  of  antago- 
nism with  the  one  and  the  Crimean  War  to  pre- 
vent access  to  warm  waters  by  the  other,  while  the 
Russians  and  Japanese,  less  than  ten  years  after 
their  great  conflict  in  Asia,  have  been  allied  in  the 
same  war.  In  the  face  of  these  outstanding  facts 
the  theory  of  the  limits  of  association  as  marked 
by  natural  antagonisms  falls  to  the  ground. 

If  we  examine  the  other  grounds  which  are  given 
as  marking  the  natural  limits  of  association, 
all  turn  out  to  be  untenable.  The  theory  that 
geographical  contiguity  marks  the  limit  of  associa- 
tion is  refuted  by  the  British  Empire,  with  England 
and  New  Zealand  on  opposite  sides  of  the  globe. 
The  theory  that  it  is  a  common  language  which 
marks  the  limits  of  association  disappears,  when 
we  examine  the  case  of  Switzerland,  where  the 
French,  German,  and  Italian  speaking  peoples 
form  a  single  association;  and  of  Canada  where 
French  and  English  speaking  populations  live 
happily  together  in  close  association.  The  theory 
of  common  racial  derivation  shatters  on  the  fact  of 
North  America,  where  people  of  all  races  and 
births  have  no  difficulty  in  forming  a  single 
association  almost  continental  in  extent. 

We  are  forced  to  conclude  then  that  the  apparent 
limits  of  human  association  are  conventional  to  a 
very  great  degree  and  that  these  limits  are  con- 
stantly varying.    But  this  fact  ruins  the  philosophy 


104  The  General  Sociological  Errors 

of  force.  It  affirms  that  collective  homicide  pro- 
duces civilization  only  when  it  takes  place  at  the 
exterior  of  groups ;  but  this  exterior  is  a  subjective 
error  of  our  minds.  Such  an  exterior  does  not 
exist.  From  the  point  of  view  of  realities,  all 
humanity  forms  a  single  association,  since  the  vital 
circulation  is  now  established  between  all  the  in- 
dividuals who  inhabit  the  earth.  The  struggles 
which  have  taken  place  between  men  since  an- 
tiquity have  always  taken  place  in  the  interior  of 
association,  because  the  very  fact  itself  that  the  two 
societies  have  entered  into  contact  shows  that  the 
vital  circulation  was  established  between  them  and 
therefore  that  they  formed  a  single  social  group. 
All  collective  homicides  since  the  commencement 
of  history  have  been,  from  the  biological  point  of 
view,  civil  wars,  because  the  distinction  between 
a  civil  war  and  a  foreign  war  is  not  in  any  concrete 
reality,  but  solely  in  the  purely  arbitrary  concep- 
tions of  men's  minds.  Since,  according  to  the 
philosophy  of  force,  progress  is  only  realized  by 
foreign  wars,  progress  would  never  have  taken 
place,  because  speaking  properly,  there  have  never 
been  any  foreign  wars. 

Another  error  of  the  philosophy  of  force  is  its 

failure  to  recognize  the  true  nature  of  war,  to 

,  which  it  ascribes  such  important  results.     War  is  in 

[reality  a  process  of  dissociation.     It  corresponds 

to  disease,  which  is  a  rupture  of  equilibrium  in 

biology.     The  nature  of  war  as  a  process  of  dis- 


War  is  Always  Dissociation       105 

sociation  is  universally  conceded  in  the  case  of 
civil  war,  as  when  the  North  and  South  fought 
in  1 86 1.  It  is  equally  true  but  less  generally 
realized  that  war  is  equally  a  process  of  dissocia- 
tion when  it  occurs  on  the  outside  of  political 
groups.  It  is  a  dissociation  in  this  case  precisely 
because  it  prevents  association.  The  economic 
and  intellectual  bonds  which  unite  the  nations  of 
Europe  in  the  twentieth  century  are  much  more 
intimate  than  those  which  united  the  provinces  of 
France,  for  example,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
but  the  French  provinces  in  the  seventeenth 
century  did  not  consider  that  it  would  serve  any 
useful  purposes  to  wage  war  with  one  another, 
although  the  European  nations  do  consider  it 
useful  in  the  twentieth  century.  From  the 
political  point  of  view,  therefore,  the  association 
between  the  European  nations  in  the  twentieth 
century  is  less  intimate  than  that  between  the 
French  provinces  at  the  time  of  Louis  XIV. 
Without  war  Europe  would  have  been  united. 
As  a  result  of  war,  it  is  disunited.  Therefore  war 
is  a  process  of  dissociation  at  the  exterior  of  the 
political  organization  as  well  as  in  the  interior. 
Without  war,  there  would  have  been  only  the  fact 
of  association  between  human  beings.  The  politi- 
cal unity  of  the  human  race,  the  establishment  of 
justice  between  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  the 
suppression  of  war,  are  all  equivalent  statements. 
War  and  dissociation  are  therefore  synonymous 
terms.     Herbert  Spencer  and  others  have  affirmed 


io6  The  General  Sociological  Errors 

that  war  has  been  the  cause  of  civilization  because 
it  alone  has  rendered  possible  the  formation  of 
the  great  nationalities  like  France  and  England. 
Exactly  the  opposite  is  the  truth.  War  has  always 
retarded  the  formation  of  great  collectivities 
because  it  has  created  hatreds  and  bitterness. 
It  was  the  wars  between  Scotland  and  England 
which  prevented  the  union  of  these  two  countries 
for  so  long.  It  was  the  war  of  1870,  with  the 
bitterness  and  desire  for  revenge  left  in  its  train, 
which  has  been  one  of  the  principal  obstacles  to 
the  organization  of  a  European  Federation.  The 
second  Balkan  War  of  191 2,  with  the  hatred  and 
bitterness  which  it  caused,  prevented  the  forma- 
tion of  a  Balkan  alliance.  Without  war  the 
federation  of  the  entire  human  race  would  have 
been  accomplished  long  ago. 

It  is  often  asserted  that  war  has  produced  the 
unity  of  the  German  Empire.  Nothing  could  be 
further  from  the  truth,  which  is  that  war  pre- 
vented the  unity  of  the  German  Empire  for  nearly 
nine  centuries.  As  late  as  the  fourteenth  century 
Germany  was  divided  into  between  five  hundred 
and  six  hundred  sovereignties  which  were  almost 
continually  at  war  with  each  other.  In  spite  of  the 
passionate  longing  of  the  German  people  to  be 
united,  the  unity  could  not  be  accomplished  even 
as  late  as  i860  because  the  kings  of  Hanover, 
Bavaria,  and  Wiirttemberg  would  not  give  up 
their  sovereignty,  which  means  the  right  to  declare 
war  upon  each  other  whenever  they  felt  inclined 


War  Always  a  Social  Disease     107 

to  do  so.  In  Germany  as  elsewhere  it  was  the 
philosophy  of  force  that  prevented  unity.  "No 
country  had  so  little  militarism  in  the  Middle 
Ages  as  England,"  says  Mr.  Lacombe.^  Conse- 
quently it  was  the  first  nation  to  unify,  while 
Germany's  unity,  on  account  of  the  dominance  of 
the  philosophy  of  force,  was  the  slowest  of  all  in 
forming.  When  it  is  realized  that  national  unity 
merely  means  that  the  people  inhabiting  a  country 
have  found  another  way  of  adjusting  their  differ- 
ences, other  than  wholesale  murder  on  the  field  of 
battle,  it  is  at  once  apparent  that  war  is  always  a 
process  of  dissociation,  never  of  association. 

The  indirect  result  of  war  as  a  process  of  dis- 
sociation retards  the  progress  of  the  human  race 
much  more  than  the  direct  result  in  the  number  of 
men  actually  killed  and  maimed.  This  is  because 
association  is  not  an  addition,  but  a  multiplication 
of  vital  power.  Ten  men  working  together  under 
a  system  of  division  of  labour  produce,  not  ten 
times  as  much  as  ten  men  working  alone,  but  one 
hundred  times  as  much.  In  the  same  way  war  is 
not  a  subtraction  of  vital  power  but  a  division. 

Since  even  the  philosophy  of  force  recognizes 
that  war  is  a  social  disease  when  it  occurs  within 
the  limits  of  human  society,  and  since  the  growth  of 
communication  and  of  interdependence  has  made 
the  entire  human  race  into  a  single  social  organism, 
all  war  must  now  be  considered  as  a  social  dis- 
ease.    Health  is  a  state  which  makes  for  growth, 

'  L'histoire  consideree  comme  science,  p.  4. 


io8  The  General  Sociological  Errors 

for  the  intensification  of  life,  and  for  happiness. 
Moreover,  health  is  the  natural  condition  because 
it  corresponds  with  the  maximum  of  vital  inten- 
sity. If  the  intensity  of  life  is  not  the  natural 
state  then  it  must  be  feebleness  of  life  which  is 
natural.  This  would  mean  that  the  natural  state 
of  a  living  being  would  be  to  possess  the  weakest 
possible  amount  of  life,  that  is  to  say  not  to  be 
a  living  being,  but  this  is  contradictory.  Growth 
and  life  are  therefore  synonymous  terms.  The 
growth  is  at  first  physiological,  then  economic 
and  intellectual.  A  person  who  becomes  every 
day  poorer  and  less  intelligent  is  in  a  morbid 
state.  Since  mutual  aid  is  the  most  effective 
process  for  intensifying  life,  the  failure  to  employ 
this  process  results  in  a  diminution  of  life  and 
therefore  in  a  state  of  social  disease.  Therefore, 
all  hostilities  between  men,  which  have  as  an  in- 
evitable result  a  dissociation,  is  a  diseased  condi- 
tion. It  is  precisely  because  it  is  a  commencement 
of  dissociation  and  contrary  to  nature  that  homi- 
cide is  considered  as  immoral;  for,  as  we  shall  see 
later, '  morality,  according  to  Darwin,  is  the  sum  of 
rules  to  which  we  should  conform  ourselves  in 
order  to  attain  the  maximum  of  vital  intensity. 

Since  the  state  of  social  health  for  the  human 
species  is  in  the  association  of  all  men,  this  is  also 
the  natural  state.  Otherwise  we  should  have  to 
say  that  the  natural  condition  of  a  being  is  the 
condition  of  disease ;  i.e. ,  that  the  maximum  of  vital 

»  See  the  chapter  on  "Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress." 


Social  Disease  Always  Due  to  Error  109 

intensity  consists  in  the  condition  of  a  minimum  of 
vital  intensity,  which  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdum. 
But  if  the  association  of  the  entire  human  race  is 
the  natural  condition  of  our  species  we  can  realize 
how  much  Marshal  von  Moltke  deceived  himself 
when  he  said  that  war  {i.e.,  the  diseased  condition 
of  our  species)  conforms  to  the  order  of  things 
established  by  God.  If  this  were  true,  God 
would  have  established  an  order  of  things  which 
is  anarchy,  and  therefore  the  disorder  of  things. 
In  other  words  God  would  have  established  a 
disorder  which  is  an  order.  The  contradiction 
could  not  be  more  complete. 

The  philosophy  of  force  fails  entirely  to  realize 
that  the  condition  of  social  disease  is  due  to  error. 
The  reason  why  the  association  of  all  men  is  not 
yet  complete  is  because  of  the  wide-spread  belief 
that  men  can  increase  their  well-being  more  rapidly 
by  despoiling  their  neighbours  than  by  working 
themselves  to  adapt  the  physical  environment, 
i.e.,  to  produce  wealth. 

The  social  disease  of  anarchy  in  human  rela- 
tions is  the  result  of  the  belief  in  the  effectiveness 
of  exploitation  and  banditism.  The  idea  that  men 
can  enrich  themselves  most  quickly  by  despoil- 
ing their  neighbours  has  profoundly  affected  the 
structure  of  all  our  national  and  international 
institutions.  By  far  the  largest  part  of  the  en- 
ergies of  all  national  governments  are  absorbed 
in  the  provisions  for  national  defence.  But 
there  would  be  no  need  of  national  defence  unless 


no  The  General  Sociological  Errors 

there  were  danger  of  aggression  and  there  would 
be  no  danger  of  aggression  unless  the  motives  for 
aggression  were  present,  or  believed  to  be  present, 
in  the  minds  of  possible  enemies.  Collective 
homicide  is  always  a  means  to  an  end.  The  im- 
mense majority  of  the  wars  of  history  have  had 
exploitation  as  a  motive  of  the  aggressors.  The 
disappearance  of  the  idea  that  men  can  enrich 
themselves  more  quickly  by  exploitation  than  by 
productive  labour  will  mark  the  greatest  intellec- 
tual revolution  in  the  history  of  the  human  race, 
and  will  open  for  our  species  the  way  to  an  era  of 
prosperity  and  happiness  of  which  we  cannot  now 
form  the  faintest  picture. 

A  fuller  consideration  of  this  error  will  be  given 
in  the  chapter  on  "Justice  and  the  Expansion  of 
Life,"  but  a  few  illustrations  will  be  useful  in  show- 
ing the  nature  of  the  error  involved.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  untrue  to  say  that  men  can  enrich  them- 
selves most  rapidly  by  exploitation.  In  order 
that  Peter  may  rob  Paul,  it  is  necessary  first  that 
Paul  shall  have  produced  something.  The  vast 
majority  of  the  human  race  are  engaged  in  pro- 
ductive labour.  The  philosophy  of  force  ignores 
these,  for  it  ignores  the  physical  universe  and  the 
real  struggle  for  existence,  which  is  the  struggle 
against  physical  environment .  The  statement  must 
be  limited  then  to  mean  that  not  men  but  the 
exploiters  can  enrich  themselves  more  rapidly  by 
preying  upon  their  fellow-men  than  by  productive 
labour.     This  amounts  already  to  a  great  limita- 


Error  Prevents  World  Organization  iii 

tlon  upon  the  number  of  those  who  find  exploita- 
tion advantageous. 

We  must  still  further  limit  this  number  by  the 
consideration  that  it  is  only  the  fortunate  exploiters 
who  find  it  advantageous.  The  highwaymen, 
thieves,  and  burglars  who  are  unsuccessful  in  all 
their  ventures,  must  soon  die  of  starvation. 
Within  the  State  direct  exploitation  has  long  been 
considered  criminal,  has  been  prosecuted,  and  has 
steadily  become  less  lucrative.  On  the  other 
hand,  indirect  exploitation,  authorized  by  the 
State,  has  been  practised  upon  an  immense  scale 
in  modern  society.  It  takes  the  various  forms  of 
monopolies,  protective  tariffs,  subsidies,  bounties, 
and  privileges  of  all  kinds.  But  even  here  qualifi- 
cations are  necessary,  which  greatly  reduce  the 
number  of  possible  beneficiaries.  The  woollen 
manufacturer,  for  example,  protected  by  Schedule 
K  of  the  old  tariff  in  the  United  States,  was  en- 
abled to  draw  tribute  from  all  American  consumers 
of  woollen  goods,  who  were  obliged  to  pay  him  a 
higher  price  than  they  would  have  had  to  pay  for 
foreign  goods.  But  he  was  not  the  only  beneficiary. 
He  was  obliged,  in  turn,  to  pay  tribute  to  all  the 
manufacturers  who  were  benefited  by  the  other 
schedules  of  protective  tariff.  If  a  balance  were 
drawn  up,  showing  the  gains  and  the  losses  due  to 
the  protective  tariff,  the  number  of  those  who 
would  find  their  gains  greater  than  their  losses 
would  be  very  few. 

It  is  the  international  form  of  the  same  idea, 


112  The  General  Sociological  Errors 

that  banditism  is  the  quickest  way  to  acquire 
wealth,  which  underUes  poUtical  conquest  and  the 
system  of  anned  peace.  It  is  almost  universally 
believed  that  a  nation  can  use  its  military  power 
to  gain  important  advantages  for  its  people. 
Norman  Angell  in  The  Great  Illusion  has  examined 
the  different  ways  in  which  it  is  supposed  that 
military  power  can  insure  economic  advantages — 
markets  and  foreign  trade,  indemnities,  colonies, 
etc. — and  has  demonstrated  that  the  supposed  ad- 
vantages are  in  all  the  cases  which  he  considered 
illusions.  But  this  demonstration  of  the  economic 
futility  of  military  force,  when  used  for  aggression, 
will  become  effective  enough  to  induce  the  govern- 
ments to  give  up  the  system  of  international 
banditism  and  anarchy,  and  enter  into  a  system 
of  world  organization  under  justice  and  law,  only 
when  the  realization  of  this  truth  is  sufficiently 
wide-spread.  This  is  because  the  actions  of  men 
are  governed,  not  by  the  truth,  but  by  what  they 
believe  to  be  the  truth.  If  what  men  believe  is 
error,  their  actions  will  be  in  accord  with  this  error, 
and  will  lead  to  a  rupture  of  vital  equilibrium  and 
the  condition  of  the  social  disease.  The  action 
of  nations  in  continuing  the  system  of  war  is  a 
consequence  of  wrong  ideas.  It  is  like  the  action 
of  a  man  who  touches  a  wire  charged  with  a  high 
tension  current  of  electricity.  He  believes  that 
the  wire  is  not  dangerous.  As  the  result  of  his 
error  he  suffers  severely.  His  vital  intensity  is 
decreased  and  the  injury  to  the  organism  may 


Error  Prevents  World  Organization  113 

even  result  in  death.  It  is  because  the  nations 
believe  that  exploitation  by  means  of  military 
power,  aggressively  used,  is  an  effective  method 
of  promoting  national  welfare  that  they  refuse  to 
give  up  their  sovereignty, — i.e.,  right  to  attack 
each  other  on  any  occasion  whatever, — and  to 
establish  the  federation  of  the  entire  human  race. 
The  dissociation  of  mankind,  therefore,  is  due  to 
error.  But  error  cannot  be  eternal.  Truth  once 
discovered  makes  its  way  irresistibly  until  it  is 
victorious.  After  Copernicus  had  discovered  that 
the  earth  revolved  around  the  sun,  not  all  the 
forces  of  reaction,  of  persecution,  of  supersti- 
tion, or  of  an  obscurantist  theology  could  prevent 
the  intellectual  revolution  which  established  this 
truth  in  the  minds  of  men.  The  great  war  has 
demonstrated  on  a  colossal  scale  that  error  means 
death,  that  military  force  cannot  be  successfully 
used  for  aggression  in  the  modern  world,  that  the 
system  of  international  anarchy,  based  upon 
national  banditism  and  exploitation,  is  disastrous 
to  the  people  of  the  nations  which  live  under  that 
system.  With  the  results  of  error  so  plainly 
visible,  it  is  only  a  question  of  time  when  the 
truth  will  be  recognized,  that  justice,  not  force 
and  exploitation,  is  the  great  secret  of  the  expan- 
sion of  life.  It  is  the  realization  of  the  connection 
between  the  errors  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  the 
social  disease  and  death  which  result  from  these 
errors,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  great 
prophecy  of  hope,  "the  truth  shall  make  you  free." 

8 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  SPECIAL  SOCIOLOGICAL  ERRORS 

ABOUT  a  century  ago,  in  1806,  Cuvier  said  of 
geology,  that  it  was  "a  tissue  of  hypotheses 
and  conjectures,  so  vain  and  so  contradictory  to 
each  other  that  it  had  become  almost  impossible 
to  pronounce  its  name  without  exciting  laughter," 
All  sorts  of  wild  explanations  were  put  forward 
to  explain  observed  facts.  For  example,  to  ac- 
count for  the  shells  and  fossils  found  high  up  in 
the  Alps,  the  hypothesis  was  advanced  that  they 
had  been  carried  there  by  the  Great  Deluge; 
another  hypothesis  was  that  they  were  only 
"freaks  of  nature,"  bearing  merely  an  accidental 
resemblance  to  animals  and  plants;  while  the 
celebrated  Voltaire  suggested  that  the  shells  and 
fossils  must  have  been  dropped  there  by  the  pil- 
grims, who  used  to  cross  the  mountains  in  former 
centuries  on  their  way  to  Rome.  It  was  the  pre- 
scientific  period  in  geology,  when  a  great  mass  of 
facts  had  been  accumulated,  but  all  the  observa- 
tions were  still  in  a  chaotic  condition.  No  clear 
guiding  principle  had  been  found,  around  which 
the  known  facts  could  be  grouped.     The  entire 

114 


Sociology  in  Metaphysical  Stage    115 

subject  was  in  confusion  and  disorder.  The  most 
childish  and  incredible  theories  could  be  formu- 
lated and  pubHshed  without  injuring  the  reputa- 
tion of  their  author. 

The  same  situation,  to  a  large  extent,  holds  in 
the  science  of  sociology  a  century  later.  Many 
persons  still  deny  to  sociology  the  right  to  be 
considered  as  an  exact  science,  and  pour  ridicule 
upon  it.  Outside  of  the  American  universities 
very  little  serious  attention  is  given  to  the  subject 
in  the  academic  world.  In  the  German  universi-  /' 
ties,  for  example,  which  have  led  the  world  in  the 
studies  of  the  humanities,  philosophy,  and  history,  | 
not  a  single  course  in  sociology  was  given  as  latei 
as 1914. 

The  reasons  why  sociology  is  discredited  at  the 
present  time  are  largely  the  same  reasons  which 
discredited  geology  a  century  ago.  Numerous 
observations  have  been  collected,  and  numer- 
ous facts  have  been  placed  in  evidence,  but  no 
Ariadne's  thread  has  been  discovered  which  leads 
out  of  the  labyrinth,  and  all  manner  of  hypotheses 
can  be  advanced  without  any  necessity  for  bringing 
them  to  the  touchstone  of  concrete  facts.  With 
the  exception  of  a  few  noteworthy  books,  the  sub- 
ject of  sociology  is  in  a  state  of  complete  incoher- 
ence. Biological  phenomena  are  confused  with 
social  facts.  Men  who  call  themselves  specialists 
in  the  subject  can  still  seriously  identify  the  rela- 
tions between  France  and  Germany,  for  example, 
with  those  between  a  cat  and  a  rat  without  doing 


/  »n 


X 


ii6   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

great  injury  to  their  reputation  and  without  excit- 
ing much  ridicule.  Some  examples  of  the  false 
reasoning,  sophistries,  and  contradictions,  still 
current  in  the  subject,  are  given  in  the  present 
chapter — enough  to  show  the  pre-scientific  condi- 
tion of  the  subject.  And  the  state  of  sociology  is 
reflected  in  all  the  other  social  sciences  of  which 
sociology  should  be  the  keystone.  ' '  We  live  in  the 
stone  age  of  political  science, "  says  Prof.  Lester  F. 
Ward.    "In  poHtics  we  are  still  savages."' 

Sociology  seems  to  confirm  the  law  of  three 
states  formulated  by  the  founder  of  the  science, 
August  Comte.  It  is  still  almost  completely  in 
the  metaphysical  period.  It  has  not  yet  entered 
into  the  second  state,  the  positive  phase.  It  does 
not  place  itself  in  direct  and  immediate  contact 
with  the  concrete  facts.  Vague  theories,  general 
propositions,  affirmations  which  are  naive,  in 
their  lack  of  precision,  still  characterize  many  of 
the  books  on  the  subject. 

As  an  example  of  the  purely  metaphysical 
reasoning  which  is  still  so  common  in  the  literature 
of  the  subject,  and  which  takes  no  account  of 
the  most  elementary  concrete  facts,  the  following 
phrase  from  August  Comte  himself  is  illuminating : 

War  constitutes  at  the  beginning  the  most  simple 
means  of  procuring  subsistence.^ 

*  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  March,  1905,  p.  645. 
»  Cours  de  philosophie  positive,  3rd  edition,  1889,  volume  iv.,  p. 
506. 


Scientific  Methods  in  Sociology    117 

This  illustration  is  the  more  remarkable  coming 
from  one  of  the  greatest  philosophers  of  our  time 
and  one  who  has  protested  with  such  power  against 
the  metaphysical  spirit.  As  soon  as  he  penetrates 
into  the  domain  of  social  phenomena,  he  falls  into 
the  most  abstract  reasoning.  Comte  failed  to  see 
the  simple  fact  that  in  order  that  conquerors  might 
be  able  to  obtain  food  from  their  victims,  it  is 
necessary  that  the  victims  should  first  have  pro- 
duced a  supply  of  food  from  the  earth.  War, 
then,  is  not  the  most  simple  means  of  procuring 
subsistence.  On  the  contrary  it  is  a  very  complex 
means,  since  it  is  a  means  of  at  least  two  degrees; 
involving  first,  the  production  of  a  food  supply 
by  the  victims,  and  second,  the  series  of  acts 
necessary  in  order  that  the  conqueror  may  seize 
that  supply.  When  one  tribe  of  Indians  falls 
upon  another  tribe,  conquers  it,  and  seizes  its 
corn,  the  effort  required  for  this  war  of  conquest 
is  employed  for  purely  destructive  purposes  and 
does  not  add  a  single  ear  of  corn  to  the  available 
supply.  The  corn  comes  from  the  earth  and  is 
produced  by  labour,  and  the  massacre  of  the 
labourers  who  produce  it  does  not  increase  their 
productiveness. 

Comte,  moreover,  on  account  of  a  failure  of 
reasoning  which  is  one  of  the  most  widespread  of 
our  intellectual  defects,  thinks  only  of  the  con- 
queror. If  the  statement  is  laid  down  as  represent- 
ing a  general  law,  how  is  it  possible  to  affirm  that 
war  is  the  most  simple  means  of  procuring  sub- 


ii8   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

sistence  for  the  victim?  War  does  not  procure 
any  subsistence  for  him.  On  the  contrary  it 
causes  the  victim  to  lose  that  which  he  had  pro- 
duced by  his  labour,  and  which  the  conqueror 
seizes  from  him.  As  soon  as  we  bring  it  to  the 
test  of  concrete  facts,  therefore,  Comte's  statement 
breaks  down  in  two  ways.  For  the  conqueror, 
war  is  not  the  most  simple  method  of  procuring 
subsistence,  but  is  a  very  complex  means,  involving 
first  production  by  the  vanquished  and  second 
robbery  by  the  conqueror;  and  in  the  case  of  the 
vanquished  it  is  not  a  means  of  procuring  sub- 
sistence at  all. 

In  the  sciences  of  astronomy  or  physics  an 
obligation  is  felt  to  observe  the  facts  closely  and 
to  make  direct  observations,  but  when  we  pass  into 
the  social  realm,  this  obligation  is  no  longer  felt. 
Theory  is  abstracted  from  all  contact  with  con- 
crete facts  and  the  most  superficial  association  of 
ideas  is  considered  sufficient. 

To  the  aboriginal  Indians,  looking  across  the 
river  at  the  cornfields  of  a  neighbouring  tribe, 
and  not  sufficiently  trained  in  the  science  of 
economics  to  envisage  the  complete  process  of 
production,  war  may  seem  the  simplest  means 
of  procuring  subsistence. 

But  a  scientific  sociology  ought  to  be  sufficiently 
advanced  to  recognize  that  the  simplest  means  of 
procuring  subsistence  is  by  productive  labour,  and 
to  take  account  of  the  primary  processes  of  pro- 
duction as  well  as  the  secondary  processes  such  as 


The  Unilateral  Aberration         119 

exchange  and  robbery;  even  if  it  does  not  go  so  far 
as  to  examine  the  inevitable  social  reactions  which 
result  from  aggression — the  resistance  of  the  vic- 
tim, the  increasing  reciprocal  preparations  for 
defence,  and  the  increasing  diversion  of  labour 
from  productive  to  unproductive  purposes.  Where 
the  processes  of  exchange  have  been  established 
the  amount  of  grain  available,  of  course,  will 
increase  with  the  proportion  of  labour  which 
can  be  used  for  productive  purposes,  or  with  the 
security  of  the  country.  But  the  effect  of  war  is 
precisely  to  retard  the  work  of  productive  agricul- 
ture, on  account  of  the  insecurity  which  it  creates  in 
the  country.  At  no  time,  and  in  no  place,  neither 
at  "the  beginning"  nor  at  the  present  time,  has 
war  facilitated  the  means  of  obtaining  subsist- 
ence. Its  effect  has  always  been  diametrically 
opposite. 

The  error  of  false  comparison  runs  through  much 
of  the  philosophy  of  force.  Plants  struggle  for 
sunlight  or  moisture  in  a  field,  therefore,  the 
advocates  of  this  philosophy  claim,  struggle  is  a 
natural  law,  and  the  citizens  of  civilized  states 
ought  to  massacre  each  other  until  the  end  of 
time.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  "therefore" 
more  arbitrary,  on  account  of  the  enormous 
difference  between  plants  in  a  field  and  the 
citizens  in  a  civilized  state.  The  true  biological 
analogies  have  been  pointed  out  in  a  preceding 
chapter,  and  the  superficial  comparison  of  the 
philosophy  of  force  is  mentioned  again  here  only 


120   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

because  it  is  an  example  of  the  class  of  errors  in 
logic.  Purely  external  analogies  can  be  of  no 
service  in  building  the  structure  of  a  positive 
science.  It  is  necessary  to  compare  facts  which 
are  comparable. 

The  largest,  and  practically  the  most  important 
group  of  errors  consists  of  those  due  to  one-sided 
reasoning,  or  what  has  been  called  the  unilateral 
aberration.  This  error  is  caused  by  the  failure 
to  realize  that  in  all  matters  connected  with  the 
relations  between  men  the  action  of  one  party 
makes  only  one  half  of  the  operation,  and  that 
we  must  necessarily  misunderstand  the  operation 
as  a  whole  unless  we  think  of  the  action  of  the 
two  parties  together:  as  that  defence  necessarily 
implies  attack;  that  victory  necessarily  implies 
defeat,  and  that  there  can  be  no  conqueror  without 
a  corresponding  conquered. 

The  hypnotism  of  the  defensive  is  one  of  the 
most  common  forms  of  one-sided  reasoning. 
When  an  appeal  is  made  for  recruits  they  are 
always  enlisted  "to  defend  their  country,"  but 
nothing  is  ever  said  about  attacking  the  other 
man's  country.  In  the  same  way  it  is  the  business 
of  the  soldier  to  sacrifice  his  life  in  the  defence  of 
his  nation.  Nothing  is  said  about  what  must  con- 
stitute his  real  work  if  he  is  successful,  the  killing 
of  other  men  who  are  similarly  engaged  in  defence. 
The  official  documents  published  by  all  the  coun- 
tries involved  at  the  beginning  of  the  great  war 
furnish  striking  examples  of  the  unilateral  aberra- 


One-Sided  Reasoning  on  Armaments  121 

tion  in  orthodox  diplomacy.  Every  government 
demonstrates  to  its  own  satisfaction,  and  that 
of  its  own  people,  that  it  is  fighting  only  in  self- 
defence,  but  if  no  one  attacked,  there  would,  of 
course,  be  no  need  of  defence. 

A  characteristic  example  of  one-sided  reasoning 
and  the  hypnotism  of  the  defensive  is  given  by  de 
Molinari,  who  says: 

It  is  war  that  has  produced  security.^ 

At  first  sight  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how 
anyone  could  attempt  to  sustain  a  proposition  so 
false.  The  truth  is,  of  course,  the  exact  opposite. 
War  always  has  established  insecurity  and  de- 
stroyed security.  Only  the  disappearance  of  war 
could  really  establish  security.  The  error  could 
only  be  made  by  one  who  places  himself  at  the 
point  of  view  of  the  defensive,  and  considers  all 
wars  under  the  hypnotism  of  this  one-sided  view. 
In  another  place  de  Molinari  also  affirms  that  war 
has  established  security  by  bringing  an  end  to  the 
attacks  of  barbarians.  He  evidently  forgets  that 
these  attacks  were  the  most  important  part  of  the 
war,  and  that  without  them  security  would  have 
always  been  complete.  In  this  case,  as  in  all 
other  analogous  cases,  insecurity  comes  from  war, 
and  security  has  commenced  from  the  moment 
when  wars  have  ceased. 

The  same  one-sided  reasoning  which  is  so  com- 

*  Grandeur  et  decadence  de  la  guerre,  Paris,  1898,  p.  iv. 


122    The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

mon  in  regard  to  active  or  dynamic  war  is  also 
almost  universal  in  regard  to  latent  or  potential 
wars,  the  condition  of  armed  peace.  In  practi- 
cally all  the  discussions  of  armament,  the  tendency 
is  to  consider  the  problem  of  two  parties — war — 
in  terms  of  one.  For  example :  Winston  Churchill, 
as  First  Lord  of  the  British  Admiralty,  has  laid 
down  the  following  rule : 

The  way  to  secure  peace  is  to  be  so  strong  that 
victory  in  the  event  of  war  is  certain. 

When  this  "axiom"  is  stated  in  terms  of  two 
nations,  it  amounts  to  saying  that  for  two  nations 
to  keep  the  peace,  each  must  be  stronger  than  the 
other.  This  is,  of  course,  a  physical  impossibility, 
and  the  great  war  was  brought  about,  in  large 
measure,  by  all  the  nations  attempting  to  achieve 
this  physical  impossibility — each  nation  trying 
to  secure  peace  by  being  stronger  than  all  the 
others. 

Another  illustration  of  one-sided  reasoning  is 
found  in  the  argument  that  "preparedness"  is 
the  cause  of  civilization.  After  the  defeat  of 
1870  many  of  the  French  people  claimed  that  if 
France  had  been  better  prepared  for  war  this 
would  not  have  taken  place,  and  that  the  retarda- 
tion of  civilization  which  followed  would  not  have 
been  produced.  Therefore,  preparation  for  war 
is  the  cause  of  civilization.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
consider  here  whether  peace  can  be  secured  by  be- 


War  Always  Retards  Civilization  123 

ing  prepared  for  war  according  to  the  unilateral 
axiom  of  Winston  Churchill  (and  of  the  Navy- 
Leagues  of  all  nations) .  It  is  merely  necessary  to 
note  that  we  are  still  dealing  with  the  hypnotism 
of  the  defensive.  The  true  reasoning  is  as  follows: 
If  the  Germans  had  not  been  prepared  for  war 
before  1870  it  would  not  have  taken  place,  hence 
civilization  would  have  advanced  with  the  greatest 
rapidity  in  Europe.  Preparation  for  war  is  not 
the  cause  of  civilization,  but  the  chief  obstacle 
which  prevents  its  development. 

Another  form  of  one-sided  reasoning  runs  as 
follows:  War  has  made  it  possible  to  dominate 
barbarism;  therefore,  war  has  made  civilization. 
Thus  we  are  told  that  without  war  the  white 
race  could  not  have  settled  the  North  American 
Continent,  which  would  still  be  overrun  by  wander- 
ing tribes  of  Indians.  But  the  success  of  a  method 
of  justice  and  friendship  used  by  William  Penn  in 
dealing  with  the  Indians  and  settling  Pennsylvania 
without  war,  demonstrates  that  this  is  not  true, 
and  indicates  how  it  might  have  been  possible 
to  civilize  the  entire  continent  without  the  sacrifice 
of  lives  and  treasure  and  the  waste  of  time  involved 
in  the  Indian  Wars,  which  were  caused  chiefly 
by  the  injustice  of  the  white  settlers;  or  by  their 
quarrels,  in  which  they  enlisted  the  aid  of  the  In- 
dians as  in  the  case  of  the  French  and  Indian 
Wars. 

But  sometimes  it  is  the  barbarians  who  have 
attacked  the  civilized  people,  as  when  the  Turks 


124   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

overran  Constantinople  and  eastern  Europe  in 
the  fifteenth  century.  But  the  fact  that  the 
civiHzed  people  had  to  act  on  the  defensive  and 
employ  force  to  meet  that  used  in  the  attack  by 
the  barbarians,  does  not  change  the  fact  that  war 
has  not  advanced  civilization,  if  we  look  at  war 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  whole  operation 
instead  of  taking  a  one-sided  view.  Always  war 
has  retarded  civilization,  and  even  when  the  more 
civilized  peoples  have  triumphed,  which  is  far 
from  being  always  the  case,  war  has  meant  a  loss 
of  time,  a  circuitous  route  in  the  progress  of 
civilization  instead  of  a  direct  route.  The  develop- 
ment of  the  Balkan  peoples  has  been  retarded 
for  several  centuries  on  account  of  war,  and  their 
backward  condition  has  retarded  the  progress  of 
all  the  other  peoples  of  Europe.  The  Asiatic  in- 
vasion of  the  territory  of  Russia  in  the  thirteenth 
century  established  despotism  among  the  Rus- 
sians, and  this  despotism  has  retarded  their  progress 
for  six  centuries.  Whenever  we  examine  the  facts 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  whole  effect  instead 
of  the  unilateral  aberration,  we  find  that  war  has 
never  advanced,  but  always  retarded,  civilization. 
It  is  only  through  the  error  of  one-sided  reason- 
ing, that  moral  benefits  can  be  attributed  to  war. 
As  usually  interpreted,  a  righteous  war  is  one  in 
which  our  nation  was  victorious  or  fought  for  a 
just  cause,  but  if  our  nation  was  right,  the  enemy 
must  have  been  wrong,  and  since  war  is  essentially 
a  matter  of  two  parties,  no  war  can  be  more  than 


The  Rule  of  Universality  125 

fifty  per  cent,  righteous.  Both  parties  to  a  dispute 
may  be  wrong,  but  they  cannot  both  be  right. 
If  it  is  noble  for  a  man  to  sacrifice  himself  for  an 
ideal,  to  defend  his  country  and  his  rights,  and  to 
lay  down  his  life  for  a  great  cause,  then  it  is  equally 
base  and  ignoble  to  attack  other  men's  lives  and 
rights,  to  tyrannize  over  their  consciences,  to  de- 
stroy their  ideals  by  force.  But  every  aggressor 
must  of  necessity  commit  these  misdeeds.  Since 
there  can  be  no  war  without  an  aggressor,  war 
must  be  counted  not  as  the  cause  of  the  progress 
of  civilization  but  as  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the 
degradation  of  the  human  race. 

The  test  for  one-sided  reasoning  is  the  rule  of 
universality.  Let  us  apply  this  rule,  for  example, 
to  the  following  statement  by  Ernest  Renan. 

.  .  .  Fidelity  to  a  monarch  (something  which  de- 
mocracy holds  to  be  base  and  stupid)  is  that  which 
gives  strength  and  extends  the  possession  of  territory.^ 

Renan  is  thinking  of  the  fidelity  of  the  Prussians 
to  King  William  I.  which  resulted  in  the  gain  of 
Alsace  and  Lorraine  for  Germany.  As  usual,  in 
one-sided  reasoning,  he  is  thinking  only  of  the 
conqueror  and  leaves  the  conquered  out  of  ac- 
count, but  if  the  fidelity  to  the  King  resulted  in 
the  gain  of  territory  for  Germany,  it  resulted 
equally  in  the  loss  of  these  provinces  to  France, 
for  it  is  impossible  that  one  State  should  annex  a 

'  La  reforme  intellectuelle  et  morale,  p.  293. 


126   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

province  without  another  State  losing  it,  since 
space  cannot  be  created.  If  we  admit  for  the  sake 
of  argument  that  it  is  advantageous  for  the  de- 
spoiler  to  despoil  his  own  species,  it  is  nevertheless 
contrary  to  all  logic  to  affirm  that  it  is  also  ad- 
vantageous to  the  despoiled;  but  the  despoiled 
should  receive  attention  as  well  as  the  despoiler 
in  a  general  statement.  The  conquered  is  just 
as  much  of  a  reality  as  the  conqueror.  If  Renan 
had  said:  "Fidelity  to  a  monarch  extends  the 
territory  of  the  conqueror,''  he  might  have  been 
correct,  but  when  he  says,  "Fidelity  to  a  monarch 
extends  territory,"  the  statement  is  untrue.  In 
other  words,  in  order  that  general  reasoning  should 
be  logical  it  must  not  be  one-sided.  If  we  wish 
to  know  whether  reasoning  is  correct,  we  must 
examine  it  from  all  sides.  For  example,  if  the 
general  statement  is  made  "it  is  in  the  interest  of 
all  nations  to  respect  the  right  of  their  neighbours," 
this  can  be  verified  immediately  by  applying  it 
to  many  nations.  For  example,  if  France  had  al- 
ways scrupulously  respected  the  rights  of  Germany 
and  Germany  the  rights  of  France,  the  prosperity 
of  both  nations  would  now  be  much  greater  than 
it  is.  Therefore  in  conducting  themselves  in  this 
manner,  scrupulously  respecting  the  rights  of  their 
neighbours,  they  would  have  been  acting  in  con- 
formity with  their  true  interests. 

After   the   errors   due   to   one-sided  reasoning 
come  a   series  of   confusions  which  indicate   the 


Confusion  of  War  with  Victory    127 

shallowness  of  the  discussion  of  the  subject.  For 
example,  war  is  often  confused  with  victory. 
Thus  in  advocating  a  war  to  defend  "national 
honour"  and  "vital  interests,"  the  assumption  is 
always  present  that  the  war  will  result  in  victory. 
If  the  war  should  result,  not  in  victory,  but  in 
defeat,  there  is  no  guarantee,  of  course,  that  the 
"national  honour"  or  "vital  interests"  will  be 
secured.  Austria  was  ready  to  go  to  war  with 
Servia  in  191 3  because  the  "vital  interests"  of 
Austria  demanded  that  Servia  should  not  have  a 
"little  window  on  the  sea"  of  the  Adriatic.  In 
1914  Austria  did  actually  declare  war  on  Servia 
because  her  "national  honour"  demanded  that 
the  assassination  of  the  Archduke  should  be  pun- 
ished. On  both  sides  the  assumption  was  made 
that  war  would  result  in  victory.  But  with  grow- 
ing world-unity,  the  assumption  that  war  and  vic- 
tory are  synonymous  is  not  always  justified  even 
when  the  opposed  forces  are  apparently  so  unequal 
as  those  of  Austria  and  Servia.  In  the  modern 
world  the  possibility  of  international  complica- 
tions must  always  be  taken  into  account.  No  one 
can  prophesy  at  the  beginning  of  a  war  what  the 
end  will  be. 

In  this  confusion  of  war  with  victory,  we  are 
dealing  with  the  same  confusion  which  was  at  the 
bottom  of  the  duelling  system  as  a  method  of 
defending  individual  honour  and  interest.  This 
theory  was  exploded  for  the  case  of  the  individual 
duel,  when  Aaron  Burr,  who  was  in  the  wrong, 


128   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

killed  Alexander  Hamilton,  almost  universally  con- 
sidered to  have  had  justice  and  right  on  his  side, 
in  the  last  great  duel  fought  in  the  Anglo-Saxon 
world. 

It  is  this  confusion  of  war  with  victory  which 
is  at  the  bottom  of  our  belief  in  war  as  a  method 
of  solving  international  problems.  Thus  the  re- 
vanche  party  in  France  has  maintained  for  more 
than  forty-four  years  that  "war  is  the  only  solu- 
tion of  the  question  of  Alsace-Lorraine."  If  this 
were  true,  why  did  not  the  war  of  1870  solve  the 
question?  And  if  the  war  of  1870  could  not  solve 
the  problem  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  how  can  war  solve 
this  or  any  other  problem  ?  Suppose  the  Germans 
to  be  completely  defeated  and  Alsace-Lorraine 
back  in  the  possession  of  the  French,  then  the 
Germans  would  have  lost  a  province,  with  great 
German  cities  like  Strassburg  cut  off  from  the 
living  body  of  Germany,  and  they  would  begin 
to  arm  themselves  to  get  it  back  as  they  did  after 
Louis  XIV.  took  it  from  them  in  1648.  It  is 
evident  that  the  assumption  that  war  and  victory 
are  synonymous  is  unjustifiable,  and  as  we  shall 
see  more  especially  in  the  next  chapter,  force 
cannot  solve  complex  social  and  international 
problems.  All  that  is  meant  by  solving  a  question 
by  war  is  that  the  victory  should  be  on  the  side 
of  the  one  who  is  speaking.  However,  no  one 
can  be  absolutely  sure  of  the  victory.  If  they 
were,  there  would  be  no  war.  The  Prince  of 
Monaco    does    not    declare    war    upon    France, 


Confusion  of  Unity  with  Despotism  129 

no  matter  how  greatly  his  national  honour  or  vital 
interests  are  injured,  because  he  knows  perfectly 
well  that  he  would  be  defeated.  In  order  that 
two  countries  shall  go  to  war,  there  must  be  a 
chance  for  victory  on  both  sides.  But  this  means 
that  there  must  also  be  a  chance  for  defeat  on 
both  sides,  and  that  the  confusion  of  war  and 
victory,  therefore,  is  necessarily  an  illogical  one. 
Another  confusion  which  presents  a  formidable 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  world  federation  is  that 
which  identifies  unity  with  despotism.  The 
spectre  of  another  Roman  Empire  ruled  by  a 
Cassar  raised  to  the  height  of  a  demigod,  and 
trampling  on  the  rights  of  nationalities,  still  haunts 
the  minds  of  many  thinkers  when  the  idea  of  unity 
of  the  world  is  suggested.     Renan  says: 

The  nations  will  not  endure  forever.  They  have 
commenced  and  they  will  finish.  The  confederation 
of  Europe,  in  all  probability,  will  replace  them.  But 
this  is  not  the  law  of  the  century  in  which  we  live.  At 
the  present  time  the  existence  of  the  nations  is  good, 
even  necessary.  Their  existence  is  the  guarantee  of 
the  liberty  which  would  be  lost  if  the  world  had  only 
one  law  and  one  master.  ^ 

The  confusion  to  which  this  identification  of 
unity  with  despotism  gives  rise  is  clear.  The 
federation  of  the  world  means  the  abolition  of 
war  and  therefore  the  end  of  international  anarchy, 
but  when  federation  and  unity  are  identified  with 

'  Qu'est-ce  qu'une  nation?  Paris,  1882,  p.  28. 
9 


130   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

despotism,  then  anarchy  and  war  become  synony- 
mous with  Hberty. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  confusion  of  unity 
with  despotism  can  persist  so  obstinately  when  so 
many  examples  of  federation  without  despotism 
are  presented  by  the  modern  world.  In  North 
America  the  forty-eight  commonwealths  of  the 
United  States  have  entered  into  a  voluntary  federa- 
tion without  loss  of  liberty  and  without  coming 
under  the  rule  of  a  despot.  The  cantons  of  the 
Swiss  Republic  furnish  another  example  of  unity 
with  liberty.  An  illustration  of  a  still  looser 
federation,  more  valuable  because  it  foreshadows 
the  loose  form  in  which  the  unity  of  the  world 
will  at  first  be  brought  about,  is  given  by  the  self- 
governing  nations  of  the  British  Empire.  Be- 
tween these  nations,  which  are  sovereign  in  all  but 
name,  the  use  of  force  has  been  definitely  aban- 
doned, yet  there  is  not  a  trace  of  despotism  in  this 
unity.  On  the  contrary  the  principle  of  home 
rule  has  been  carried  to  its  most  extreme  degree. 

Another  confusion,  similar  to  that  illustrated 
by  the  quotations  from  Renan,  consists  in  identi- 
fying federation  with  centralization.  Many  who 
consider  the  federation  of  the  seventy  million 
people  of  the  German  Empire  or  the  hundred 
million  people  of  the  United  States  of  America 
a  good  thing,  consider  nevertheless  that  the 
federation  of  the  fifteen  hundred  million  people 
of  the  human  race  would  be  an  evil.  In  con- 
sidering the  limits  of  association  it  is  apparent 


Widespread  Belief  on  Proof  of  Truth  131 

that  there  is  no  basis  for  this  view  in  the  nature 
of  the  association  itself.  On  the  contrary  the 
benefits  of  association  are  in  proportion  to  its 
extent  and  the  larger  the  area  it  includes  the  more 
advantageous  it  becomes.  The  objection  is  based 
on  the  confusion  of  federation  with  centralization. 
The  history  of  the  process  of  federation  in  America 
and  the  strength  of  the  sentiment  in  favour  of 
State  rights  even  after  this  doctrine  has  largely 
outlived  its  usefulness,  indicates  that  there  is  no 
need  to  fear  that  national  rights  are  likely  to  be 
swamped  in  a  process  of  world  centralization. 
All  the  indications  are  that  in  the  future  as  in 
the  past  the  process  of  unity  will  lag  far  behind 
the  needs  of  the  nations.  The  centrifugal  forces 
will  more  than  outbalance  the  centripetal.  The 
remedy  for  bad  organization  or  too  much  centraliza- 
tion is  not  to  be  found  in  disorganization  or  an- 
archy. It  is  to  be  found  in  good  organization  with 
a  wise  balance  between  the  central  and  local 
powers. 

Along  with  the  errors  of  one-sided  reasoning 
and  the  confusion  due  to  lack  of  penetrating  think- 
ing should  be  classed  such  sophisms  as : 

1.  That  belief  is  a  proof  of  reality, 

2.  The  fallacy  of  the  transitory  phase, 

3.  The  sophism  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc. 

I.  The  philosophy  of  force  holds  that  if  a 
belief  has  been  dominant  in  the  world  for  a  long 


132   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

time  it  must  have  some  reason  for  existence; 
it  must  correspond  with  some  real  need.  "War 
always  has  been  and  always  will  be,  therefore  it 
is  a  biological  and  sociological  necessity."  The 
advocates  of  this  doctrine  quote  approvingly 
Pope's  line  "Whatever  is,  is  right."  This  soph- 
ism is  a  part  of  the  general  tendency  to  make 
thought  parasitic  upon  action,  to  justify  the  condi- 
tions which  we  find  in  the  world  about  us  without 
submitting  them  to  critical  analysis.  It  is  inti- 
mately related  to  the  social  fatalism  which  we 
shall  study  more  closely  later,  but  this  philosophy 
fails  to  take  account  of  the  fact  that  social  and 
political  institutions  are  created  by  men  and  that 
man  is  subject  to  error.  An  error  which  has  been 
dominant  for  thousands  of  years  does  not  become 
for  that  reason  the  truth.  Neither  the  duration 
nor  the  universality  of  an  idea  has  anything  to  do 
with  the  truth.  At  the  time  when  witches  were 
burned,  the  belief  in  witchcraft  was  almost  univer- 
sal in  the  Western  world.  At  one  time  Columbus 
stood  alone  in  opposing  the  almost  universal 
belief  that  the  earth  was  flat,  yet  Columbus  was 
right  and  the  almost  universal  behef  was  wrong. 
2.  The  sophism  of  the  transitory  state  consists 
in  the  assertion  that  a  thing  which  is  wrong  or 
evil  in  itself  is  a  good  thing  because  without  it  a 
certain  other  desirable  condition  could  not  have 
been  realized.  Thus  Spencer  asserts  that  war 
has  been  a  good  thing  in  the  past  because  it  forced 
men  to  co-operate,  and  because  without  co-opera- 


Militaristic  Sophistries  133 

tion,  and  therefore  without  war,  there  would  have 
been  no  civilization.  Prof.  Lester  F.  Ward  as- 
serts that  slavery  has  been  the  sole  means  by  which 
man  has  been  enabled  to  attain  the  industrial 
stage.  Therefore  war,  which  has  rendered  slavery 
possible,  has  been  the  cause  of  the  civilization  of 
our  species,  because  it  could  not  have  been  realized, 
naturally,  without  industry.  In  the  same  way 
others  affirm,  for  example,  that  the  human  spirit 
would  never  have  attained  the  phase  of  positive 
thought  if  it  had  not  traversed  the  errors  of 
animism.  I  am  not  here  concerned  with  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  assertion  that  without  these 
transitory  phases  the  desirable  later  stages  could 
not  have  been  reached.  Even  if  we  adopt  com- 
pletely false  assumptions,  as  that  civilization 
would  have  been  impossible  without  war,  the  con- 
clusion does  not  follow  that  war  was  a  good  thing. 
The  correct  conclusion  is  that  the  true  good  would 
have  been  civilization  without  war,  industrial 
labour  without  slavery,  the  positive  spirit  in 
thought  without  animism.  War,  slavery,  and 
animism  have  been  only  evils,  if  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  they  have  represented  a  loss  of 
time. 

To  many  the  discussion  of  these  sophistries 
will  seem  useless  and  academic.  Slavery  and 
animism  have  been  abolished,  they  will  say,  and 
it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  that  war  has  not  been 
a  good  thing  in  the  past.  All  we  have  to  demon- 
strate is  that  it  has  served  its  purpose  and  is  not 


134   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

a  good  thing  at  the  present  time.  The  reply  is, 
first,  that  if  sociology  is  ever  to  become  a  real 
science,  it  must  follow  the  truth  wherever  it  may 
lead;  and,  second,  that  the  correction  of  error  in 
any  department  of  human  life  is  always  worth 
while  because  every  error,  through  its  ramifica- 
tions, distorts  social  theory  in  many  places.  Thus 
the  reasoning  in  regard  to  slavery  and  animism 
and  other  transition  phases  of  this  nature  are  all 
used  as  buttresses  of  the  apology  for  war  and  the 
philosophy  of  force.  Moreover,  in  the  case  of  war, 
the  reasoning  does  not  apply  only  to  the  past, 
as  in  the  case  of  slavery  and  animism,  which  have 
disappeared,  but  it  has  an  important  bearing 
upon  the  present.  It  is  worth  while  to  demon- 
strate that  war  has  always  been  an  evil  in  order  to 
prevent  the  formulation  of  doctrines  of  the  follow- 
ing character:  "Given  the  state  of  barbarism 
in  which  we  live,  we  have  not  yet  left  the  period 
in  which  war  is  a  good  thing."  From  the  logical 
point  of  view,  of  course,  such  doctrines  cannot 
stand  the  test  of  criticism.  To  say  that  because 
we  have  not  yet  arrived  at  the  stage  at  which  war 
is  no  longer  waged,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should 
continue  to  wage  war,  leads  directly  to  contradic- 
tion. The  human  race  will  only  enter  upon  the 
period  in  which  war  will  no  longer  be  waged  on  the 
day  when  it  is  convinced  that  it  is  futile  to  wage 
war.  There  will  never  be  a  period  therefore,  during 
which  we  shall  believe  that  war  is  useless,  and  in 
which    we    shall    nevertheless    believe    ourselves 


Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc        135 

obliged  to  wage  war.  This  reasoning  holds  true, 
of  course,  only  from  the  point  of  view  of  all  the 
nations,  but  the  interdependence  of  thought  is  so 
great  in  modern  life  that  when  the  truth  is  realized 
in  one  part  of  the  world,  that  war  is  economically, 
socially,  and  morally  futile,  the  new  ideas  will 
rapidly  spread  through  the  other  parts  of  the 
world  and  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  world 
federation  will  be  removed.  We  have  seen  in 
Chapter  I  that  the  philosophy  of  force  is  an 
international  philosophy.  The  history  of  all  in- 
tellectual advance  teaches  us  that  the  disin- 
tegration of  this  philosophy  will  also  be  an 
international  process. 

The  sophistry  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc  is  one 
of  the  crudest  fallacies  of  the  philosophy  of  force. 
Whenever  a  good  thing  takes  place  after  a  war 
it  is  immediately  placed  to  the  credit  of  this  war. 
Thus  it  is  often  argued  that  since  the  Civil  War 
in  America  was  followed  by  a  great  burst  of 
industrial  activity,  the  building  of  the  great 
transcontinental  railroads,  and  other  proofs  of 
the  vital  energy  of  the  people  of  the  North,  there- 
fore all  this  creative  activity  was  caused  by  the 
Civil  War.  But  when  evil  effects  follow  the  war, 
as  in  the  economic  stagnation  of  the  South  in  the 
same  period,  the  war  is  not  held  responsible.  This 
sophism  is  hardly  worthy  of  scientific  considera- 
tion. In  science  a  cause  is  something  which  is 
invariably  followed  by  the  same  effect.  All  stu- 
dents   of    the    social    sciences    know    that    the 


136  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

causes  of  social  phenomena  are  almost  infinitely 
complex.  To  reduce  these  effects  to  a  single 
cause  results  in  complete  confusion.  This  sub- 
ject has  already  been  touched  upon  in  considering 
the  true  nature  of  social  struggles.  ^  It  is  not  the 
purpose  at  the  present  time  to  inquire  into  these 
complex  causes  or  to  examine  the  economic  facts  of 
the  argument ;  we  are  concerned  here  simply  with 
the  fallacy  from  the  point  of  view  of  logic.  It  is 
impossible  to  deny  that  some  wars  are  followed, 
not  by  activity  and  prosperity,  but  by  a  relapse 
into  barbarism  and  stagnation  such  as  followed 
the  victory  of  the  Turks  in  the  Balkans,  and  the 
Civil  Wars  of  Mexico  and  Venezuela.  War  pro- 
duces then  sometimes  civilization  and  sometimes 
barbarism.  The  same  cause,  according  to  the 
philosophy  of  force,  produces  diametrically  oppo- 
site effects. 

A  final  sophistry  is  due  to  the  failure  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  statement  of  a  fact  and  the 
pronouncement  of  a  judgment.  If  it  is  said  that 
war  has  been  permanent  during  the  entire  historic 
period,  then  this  is  a  simple  statement  of  fact,  but 
if  it  is  said  that  war  has  been  a  benefit,  this  is  to 
pronounce  a  judgment.  The  statement  of  fact 
may  be  perfectly  true  and  the  judgment  abso- 
lutely false.  If  the  statement  is  made  as  follows, 
this  confusion  does  not  arise  and  we  are  dealing 
with    realities.     "During    the    historical    period 

» See  Chapter  III.  on  the  Biological  Errors,  pp.  88-95. 


Direct  Bond  of  Causality         137 

man  has  waged  war  almost  constantly.  At  the 
same  time  he  has  passed  from  savagery  to  civiliza- 
tion." But  if  one  proceeds  to  affirm  that  since 
these  two  facts  are  parallel  and  simultaneous,  one 
is  the  cause  of  the  other,  the  logical  deduction 
cannot  withstand  the  first  test  of  criticism.  The 
reasoning  has  no  power  behind  it.  If  only 
parallelism  and  simultaneousness  are  given  in 
explanation,  we  are  quite  as  well  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  civilization  has  progressed  in  spite 
of  war  as  on  account  of  war.  In  order  that  cer- 
tain effects  may  be  attributed  to  a  certain  cause, 
simultaneousness  alone  does  not  suffice  in  science. 
The  direct  bond  of  causality  must  be  established. 
The  doctrine  that  war  is  the  cause  of  civilization 
corresponds  to  the  cataclysmic  theory  in  geology 
before  that  subject  became  a  science.  As  long  as 
the  geologists  believed  in  the  theory  of  universal 
cataclysm  and  special  creation,  the  subject  was 
veiled  in  a  haze  of  metaphysics  and  contradictory 
hypotheses.  Geology  became  a  positive  science 
only  when  the  theory  of  slow  and  actual  causes 
was  adopted.  The  influence  of  earthquakes  and 
cataclysms  in  shaping  the  earth's  crust  is,  of  course, 
still  recognized,  but  this  influence  is  assigned  a 
relatively  unimportant  place  in  comparison  with  the 
effect  of  such  factors  as  erosion  by  wind  and  water, 
the  slow  and  invisible  folding  of  the  earth's  crust 
due  to  pressure  and  contraction,  and  the  deposit 
of  sediment  by  rivers.  In  the  same  way  sociology 
will  become  a  positive  science  when  it  adopts  the 


138   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

theory  of  slow  and  actual  causes,  that  is,  when  it 
rejects  the  cataclysmic  theory.  The  methodical 
study  and  classification  of  social  facts  by  means 
of  statistics,  the  new  social  psychology  which  is 
arising,  the  systematic  observation  of  the  action  of 
social  forces  in  the  every-day  Hfe  about  us,  indi- 
cate that  sociology  is  now  passing  from  the  meta- 
physical stage  into  the  phase  of  a  positive  science. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  the  cataclys- 
mic theory  should  have  been  adopted  at  first  in 
sociology.  The  social  sciences  have  gone  to  history 
for  much  of  their  data,  and  until  recent  years 
much  of  history  has  been  a  catalogue  of  battles, 
conveying  the  impression  that  the  "fifteen  deci- 
sive battles"  of  the  world  have  been  the  cause  of 
the  progress  of  civilization.  Wars  have  been  the 
great  dramatic  events  of  history,  impressing  them- 
selves upon  the  popular  imagination  like  floods 
and  earthquakes,  while  the  daily  events  of  pro- 
ductive labour  and  social  contact,  the  gradual 
accumulation  of  inventions,  the  slow  extension 
of  the  bounds  of  human  knowledge  by  explora- 
tion and  discovery  have  not  made  this  same 
dramatic  appeal.  Monuments  have  been  erected 
to  commemorate  great  wars  and  battles,  because 
of  the  fact  that  they  were  out  of  the  ordinary, 
and  historians,  finding  very  little  to  bear  witness 
to  the  true  history  of  civilization,  have  been  com- 
pelled to  take  these  mgnuments  as  the  chief  data 
of  the  past.  The  same  process  can  be  observed 
in  the  modem  newspaper,  where  the  accidents, 


Cataclysmic  Theory  of  Progress    139 

the  murders,  and  other  extraordinary  events  are 
featured,  precisely  because  they  are  out  of  the 
ordinary  and  therefore  news,  while  the  daily  life 
of  the  people,  the  unceasing  labour  and  construc- 
tive efforts,  the  slow  and  invisible  forces  of  social 
progress,  are  almost  completely  ignored. 

The  slightest  consideration  of  the  actual  facts  of 
social  life  suffices  to  show  how  untenable  is  the 
cataclysmic  theory  that  the  physical  struggle 
between  men  is  the  sole  cause  of  social  progress. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  deny,  for  example,  that  the 
invention  of  fire,  of  the  wheel,  of  the  sail,  of  the 
wagon,  of  the  steam  engine  and  the  locomotive,  of 
the  telegraph  and  telephone,  of  the  automobile, 
of  all  those  common  things  which  play  so  important 
a  part  in  our  daily  life,  such  as  bread,  cooking,  and 
clothing,  have  contributed  immensely  to  the 
progress  of  the  human  race.  However,  none  of 
these  inventions,  nor  any  of  a  thousand  others, 
which  constitute  the  instruments  of  production 
and  of  our  economic  life,  have  been  made  for  the 
purpose  of  combating  the  members  of  our  own 
species.  (Curiously  enough,  not  even  gunpowder 
was  invented  for  the  purpose  of  war.)  All  these 
inventions  were  made  solely  to  aid  in  the  struggle 
against  the  physical  universe.  Many  of  the 
inventions  have  of  course  been  used  in  war; 
militarism  uses  every  instrument  which  it  can 
adapt  to  its  purposes.  But  none  of  them  have 
been  made  for  the  purpose  of  war  or  with  a  view 
to  their  use  in  the  struggle  between  men. 


140  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

The  favourite  argument  of  "social  Darwinism" 
is  familiar  to  almost  everyone.  War  has  been 
the  cause  of  civilization,  because  it  has  constituted 
a  process  of  selection  in  the  human  species.  The 
strongest,  and  therefore  the  best,  have  survived 
in  the  battle,  while  the  weak  and  the  inferior  have 
been  killed  off,  and  thus  the  race  has  been  perfected. 

This  infantile  theory  has  been  so  thoroughly 
exploded  by  eminent  biologists  like  David  Stan- 
Jordan,^  who  have  examined  the  actual  facts  of 
the  effects  of  war  on  the  race,  that  it  is  imnecessary 
to  lose  time  in  slaying  the  slain  here.  War  pro- 
duces a  selection,  of  course,  but  it  is  a  reverse 
selection.  The  actual  facts  of  the  process  of 
selection  by  which  militarism  improves  the  race 
may  be  sketched  as  follows:  Carefully  select  the 
flower  of  the  race  from  each  country ;  reject  all  but 
the  very  finest  of  the  young  men,  those  who  are 
perfect  in  mind  and  body,  and  line  these  up  by 
the  millions  against  machine-guns  and  automatic 
rifles,  mow  them  down  by  the  thousands  with 
shrapnel  and  high  explosive  shells,  coming  from 
unseen  artillery  miles  away,  tmtil  the  casualty 
lists  run  up  into  the  millions, — and  leave  behind 
the  product  of  the  slums,  the  undersized,  the 
physically  and  mentally  imperfect,  the  infirm  and 
the  weak,  to  be  fathers  of  the  next  generation. 

'  See  The  Blood  of  the  Nations,  The  Human  Harvest  (a  study 
of  the  decay  of  races  through  the  survival  of  the  unfit),  War  and 
the  Breed,  and  War's  Aftermath  (a  study  of  the  eflfects  of  the 
American  Civil  War  and  of  the  Balkan  Wars  upon  the  race). 


Reverse  Selection  of  Militarism   141 

This  is  the  process  that  is  called  "improving  the 
race,"  "keeping  the  moral  fibre  of  the  nation  from 
rotting"  and  "preserving  the  virile  qualities"  of 
the  nation. 

Darwin  has  called  attention  to  the  manner 
in  which  this  reverse  selection  is  produced  by 
militarism  even  in  times  of  peace: 

In  every  country  in  which  a  large  standing  army 
is  kept  up,  the  finest  young  men  are  taken  by  con- 
scription or  are  enlisted.  They  are  thus  exposed  to 
early  death  during  war,  are  often  tempted  into  vice, 
and  are  prevented  from  marrying  during  the  prime 
of  life.  On  the  other  hand,  the  shorter  and  feebler 
men,  with  poor  constitutions,  are  left  at  home,  and 
consequently  have  a  much  better  chance  of  marrying 
and  propagating  their  kind.^ 

On  account  of  the  curious  social  myopia  which 
characterizes  the  philosophy  of  force,  and  prevents 
its  advocates  from  seeing  anything  except  the 
cataclysmic  biological  facts,  the  militarists  fail  to 
note  that  the  real  process  of  selection  does  not 
take  place  by  a  process  of  selective  homicide 
between  men,  but  by  economic  processes.  In  so 
far  as  they  have  equal  opportunity*  those  individ- 

'  Darwin,  The  Descent  of  Man,  chap,  v.,  p.  151. 

'  Darwin  has  noted  the  evil  eflfects  of  the  inheritance  of  wealth 
upon  the  process  of  selection,  and  says  that  "  primogeniture  with 
entailed  estates  is  a  more  direct  evil,"  since  "most  eldest  sons, 
though  they  may  be  weak  in  body  or  mind,  marry,  while  the 
younger  sons,  however  superior  in  these  respects,  do  not  generally 
marry." — The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  151. 


142  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

uals  who  are  most  gifted  are  able  to  insure  their 

economic  welfare,   while  the  less  gifted  are  not. 

"Positive  selection  takes  place  in  human  societies 

.  by  natural  death,  and  the  mortality  among  the 

poorer  classes  is  much  higher  than  among  the  well- 

*  to-do.     Of  course  this  factor  of  natural  mortality, 

which  is  affected  by  economic  selection,  is  much 

more  powerful  than  war,  since  it  acts  constantly, 

while  the   cataclysm  of  selective  homicide  acts 

only  at  rare  intervals. 

The  more  rapidly  the  death  of  the  weak-minded 
and  incapable  takes  place,  the  more  rapid  will  be 
the  positive  selection,  and  other  things  being  equal, 
the  more  society  would  be  composed  uniquely  of  the 
capable  and  would  tend  to  become  more  perfect. 
But  the  higher  the  mortality,  the  more  common  it 
is  and  the  less  it  attracts  attention.  As  a  result 
this  natural  mortality,  which  takes  place  every  day 
and  all  about  us,  does  not  affect  the  social  con- 
sciousness. In  other  words,  it  is  one  of  the  slow 
and  invisible  factors  which  those  who  are  hypno- 
tized by  the  catastrophic  theory  of  social  progress 
are  imable  to  perceive. 

Since  they  are  compelled  to  abandon  the  unten- 
able ground  of  individual  selection  by  war,  the  mili- 
tarists fall  back  upon  the  theory  of  collective 
selection.  Thus  Professor  Karl  Pearson  states 
the  doctrine  of  collective  selection : 

History  shows  me  one  way  and  one  way  only,  in 
which  a  high  state  of  civilization  has  been  produced, 


Survival  of  Backward  Races      143 

namely  the  struggle  of  race  with  race,  and  the  survival 
of  the  physically  and  mentally  fitter  race.  If  men 
want  to  know  whether  the  lower  races  of  man  can 
evolve  a  higher  type,  I  fear  the  only  course  is  to  leave 
them  to  fight  it  out  among  themselves.^ 

Again,  the  advocates  of  the  cataclysmic  theory 
fail  to  see  not  only  the  slow  and  invisible  causes  of 
social  progress  but  also  the  real  effects  of  war 
between  races.  Instead  of  exterminating  the 
so-called  "inferior"  races,  conquest  by  a  race  of  - 
superior  civilization  often  gives  them  an  added 
chance  of  survival.  Thus  the  number  of  Indians 
in  the  United  States,  according  to  the  census 
returns,^  is  now  rapidly  increasing.  The  taking 
over  of  the  PhiHppines  by  the  United  States  has 
given  the  Filipinos  an  added  chance  of  survival, 
not  on  account  of  the  dramatic  events  of  war, 
but  on  account  of  those  gradual  and  effective  but 
invisible  processes  of  education  and  sanitation, 
the  persistent,  undramatic  work  of  missionaries 
and  teachers,  scientists  and  engineers. 

The  cessation  of  warfare  between  the  peoples  of 
India,  the  introduction  of  railways  and  modem 
distributing  systems,  with  the  consequent  abolition 
of  famine,  the  spread  of  education  and  a  knowledge 

'  Quoted  by  J.  A.  Hobson  in  Imperialism,  pp.  141,  142. 

'  The  number  of  Indians  in  the  United  States  increased  from 
248,253  in  1890  to  265,683  in  1910.  This  increase  of  17,430  rep- 
resents a  gain  of  7  per  cent,  during  the  last  twenty  year  period. 
See  Indian  Population  in  the  United  States  and  Alaska,  Govern- 
ment Printing  OflBce,  Washington,  19 15,  p.  10. 


144  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

of  hygiene  and  the  sanitary  methods  of  modem 
civilization,  have  greatly  decreased  the  death- 
rate  in  India  and  made  possible  the  survival  of  a 
much  larger  and  increasing  population.  So  if  the 
people  of  India  are  inferior  (as  is  demonstrated, 
according  to  the  advocates  of  the  philosophy  of 
force,  by  the  fact  that  they  were  defeated  in  the 
struggle  with  the  white  race),  the  result  of  this 
struggle  has  been  greatly  to  increase  the  survival 
power  of  the  so-called  "inferior  race"  which 
"went  down"  in  the  physical  struggle. 

In  the  same  way  the  introduction  of  modern 
hygiene  and  sanitary  methods  in  Africa  and  in  the 
tropics  is  giving  other  so-called  "inferior  races"  an 
added  chance  to  survive.  The  slow  and  invisible 
causes  are  so  much  more  important  than  the  cata- 
clysmic, that  they  completely  reverse  the  action 
of  the  latter,  and  produce  precisely  the  opposite 
result  from  that  which,  in  the  philosophy  of  force, 
is  assumed  to  be  the  outcome  of  the  race  struggle. 

Renan  expresses  the  same  idea  as  Professor 
Pearson,  in  another  form: 

The  struggle  against  nature  does  not  suffice.  By 
means  of  industry  man  succeeds  in  reducing  it  to 
an  unimportant  matter.  Then  comes  the  struggle 
of  races.  ^ 

Renan  falls  a  victim  to  the  first  of  the  biological 
errors  of  the  philosophy  of  force  in  thus  practically 
ignoring   the    existence    of    the    universe.     "The 

'  La  reforme  intellectuelle  et  morale,  p.  iii. 


Nature  of  Struggle  between  Races  145 

struggle  against  nature  does  not  suffice,"  he 
says,  when  this  struggle  is  precisely  existence  itself, 
when  it  takes  place  every  second,  every  instant, 
without  ceasing,  not  only  for  the  whole  human 
race,  but  for  the  entire  realm  of  life  itself.  More- 
over, in  speaking  of  the  "struggle  of  races," 
Renan  is  not  considering  realities.  Race  is  a 
physiological  term :  if  wars  took  place  only  between 
the  white  races  and  the  negroes,  or  between  the 
white  and  the  yellow  races,  it  might  be  possible  to 
identify  war  with  the  struggle  of  the  races.  But 
this  is  not  the  case.  War  takes  place  very  often 
between  peoples  who  are  closely  allied  by  descent, 
as  between  the  Anglo-Saxons  and  the  Germans. 
This  can  hardly  be  stretched  to  "the  struggle  of 
races."  In  reality,  what  Renan  means  by  "the 
struggle  of  races  "  is  the  struggle  between  nationali- 
ties, and  here  he  is  under  the  hypnotism  of  the 
cataclysmic  theory,  failing  to  see  that  the  struggle 
between  nationalities  does  not  take  place  by 
means  of  collective  homicide,  but  by  the  processes 
of  intellectual  assimilation.  We  must  seek  in  psy- 
chic processes  the  true  nature  of  the  struggle 
between  races,  as  exemplified  in  Austria-Hungary, 
in  Alsace-Lorraine,  or  in  Poland,  where  the 
Prussians  have  tried  in  vain  for  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  to  Germanize  the  Polish  people  by 
force.  As  we  shall  see  there,  the  true  struggle 
between  races  takes  place  in  the  domain  of  social 
microscopy,  if  we  may  use  this  expression,  and  if  a 
social  selection  takes  place,  it  operates  by  social 


146  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

procedures,  processes  which  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  slaughter  of  the  battle-field,  to  which 
the  cataclysmic  theory  assigns  all  results. 

Moreover,  Renan  and  all  the  militarists  fail 
to  take  account  of  another  fact  which,  when  its 
bearing  is  realized,  ruins  completely  the  signifi- 
cance of  their  comparisons  between  individual 
biological  phenomena  and  collective  social  pheno- 
mena. In  1806,  Prussia  was  defeated  at  the  battle 
of  Jena.  According  to  the  philosophy  of  force, 
this  was  because  Prussia  was  "inferior,"  and 
France  was  "superior."  Suppose  we  admit  for 
the  moment  that  this  was  the  case.  The  selection 
now  represents  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  the 
selection  which  perfects  the  human  species.  But 
what  shall  we  say  of  the  battle  of  Leipsic?  At 
Leipsic,  in  18 13,  all  the  values  were  reversed;  it  is 
now  France  which  is  the  "inferior"  nation,  and 
according  to  Renan  it  would  be  defeat  this  time, 
and  not  victory,  which  resulted  in  the  positive 
selection.  Furthermore,  a  large  number  of  the 
same  generals  and  soldiers  who  took  part  in  the 
battle  of  Jena  also  took  part  in  the  battle  of 
Leipsic.  Napoleon  belonged,  therefore,  to  a  race 
which  was  superior  to  that  of  Bliicher  in  1806, 
but  to  an  inferior  race  in  1813,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  they  were  the  same  persons  and  had  not 
changed  their  nationality.  As  soon  as  we  bring 
these  assertions  to  the  touchstone  of  concrete 
reality  we  see  at  once  how  untenable  and  even 
ridiculous  are  direct  biological  comparisons. 


War  as  the  Ultima  Ratio        147 

This  brings  us  to  another  interesting  phase  of  the 
cataclysmic  theory — the  aberration  of  the  ultima 
ratio,  which  runs  all  through  the  philosophy  of 
force.  The  Imperial  German  Chancellor  has 
recently  given  it  expression  in  a  speech  in  the 
Reichstag.  This  is  the  way  it  is  phrased  by 
Professor  Rossler: 

"War  is  the  great  examiner  of  humanity:  it  will 
remain  the  ultima  ratio  for  the  judgment  of 
peoples."' 

This  theory  sounds  very  well,  but  what  shall 
we  say  when  war  pronounces  within  very  short 
intervals  of  time,  judgments  which  are  absolutely 
contradictory?  At  Jena,  Prussia  is  condemned; 
seven  years  afterward,  at  Leipsic,  it  is  France. 
Moreover,  Professor  Rossler  would  be  the  last  to 
agree  to  submit  to  the  verdict,  if  it  is  against  his 
own  country.  And  finally,  from  an  objective 
point  of  view,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  in 
war  it  is  the  most  perfect  nations  which  have 
always  triumphed.  According  to  this  doctrine, 
we  should  have  to  say  that  the  Romans  were 
superior  to  the  Greeks,  the  Arabs  to  the  Spanish, 
the  Danes  to  the  English,  the  Mongols  to  the 
Russians,  the  Abyssinians  to  the  Italians,  etc. 
According  to  this  doctrine,  then,  the  nations 
which  have  made  the  civilization  of  Europe  would 
all  find  themselves  in  the  ranks  of  the  "inferior," 
in  the  class  of  those  who  ought  to  be  destroyed 
for  the  advancement  of  the  human  race. 

'Quoted  by  J.  Lagorgette  in  Le  role  de  la  guerre,  p.  305. 


148  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

Another  form  of  the  doctrine  of  collective  selec- 
tion consists  in  the  theory  that  a  social  selection 
favourable  to  the  human  species  takes  place  in 
war,  because  it  destroys  the  badly  organized 
State,  and  therefore  tends  toward  progress.  Dr. 
Schallmayer  has  stated  this  doctrine  as  follows: 

The  consideration  of  the  perpetual  danger  of  being 
forced  into  a  war  and  of  being  shown  to  be  inferior, 
by  making  it  appear  disadvantageous  to  the  egoisti- 
cal sovereign  or  the  party  government  to  think  solely 
of  their  particular  interests,  prevents  them  from  ne- 
glecting the  general  interest,  even  when  the  internal 
incidence  of  social  forces  might  permit  them  to  do  so. 
In  all  cases  where  this  conduct  is  not  maintained,  the 
proof  of  an  unsuccessful  war  makes  an  end,  sooner  or 
later,  of  the  bad  governments,  and  prevents  them 
from  perpetuating  themselves  and  extending  to  other 
communities.  ^ 

The  selection  produced  by  war,  according  to  Dr. 
Schallmayer  (and  Renan  has  expressed  the  same 
idea^),  is  not  a  selection  of  individuals,  or  even 
communities,  but  of  institutions ;  and  the  improve- 
ment of  States  is  brought  about  chiefly  by  the 
fear  of  war  and  of  defeat. 

The  author  of  this  doctrine  forgets  the  fact  that 
social  phenomena  are  founded  upon  inter-psychic 
forces.     He  overlooks  the  fact  that  men  think. 

'  Metischensziele  Monthly  Review,   published  at  Leipsic  by 
O.  Wigand,  edited  by  H.  Molenaar.     1908,  No.  12,  p.  3S5. 
*  See  La  reforme  intellectuelle  et  morale,  p.  iii. 


Institutions  Result  from  Ideas     149 

It  seems  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  push  the 
disregard  of  actual  facts  further  than  this. 

The  perfection  or  imperfection  of  the  State  is  the 
result  of  the  corresponding  perfection  or  imperfec- 
tion of  its  institutions,  and  in  their  turn  the 
institutions  are  the  results  of  ideas.  A  society 
of  men  who  believe  that  slavery  is  beneficial,  or 
that  inequality  of  the  citizens  before  the  law  is  the 
best  basis  of  the  social  order,  will  be  an  imperfect 
society.  Another  society,  composed  of  men  who 
understand  the  injury  done  by  slavery  and  the 
advantage  of  equality  before  the  law,  will  be  a 
more  perfect  society.  But  how  can  war  serve 
to  make  the  organization  of  society  more  perfect, ^^ 
Suppose  that  war  occurs  between  a  country  with- 
out slaves  and  a  country  which  maintains  slavery, 
are  we  justified  in  assuming  that  the  former  will 
necessarily  be  victorious,  that  it  will  make  con- 
quests, and  that  thus  the  area  of  liberty  will  be 
extended  and  the  area  in  which  there  is  slavery 
will  be  contracted?  And  even  if  this  unjustifiable 
assumption  is  made,  the  essential  consideration 
is  neglected  that  the  first  society  did  not  suppress 
slavery  as  the  result  of  selective  homicide,  but 
as  a  consequence  of  the  direct  observation  of  social 
facts.  In  order  that  a  war  may  put  to  the  test  a 
slave-holding  country  and  a  free  country,  it  is 
necessary  that  these  two  kinds  of  countries  should 
exist  before  the  war,  which  means  that  the  reform 
must  have  preceded  the  combat,  and  this  is  in  fact 
the  process  which  we  observe  everywhere.     It  was 


150  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

not  as  a  result  of  the  Reign  of  Terror  that  the 
constitutionalists  in  France  established  the  Rights 
of  Man.  In  so  far  as  violence  was  employed,  an 
epoch  of  reaction,  instead  of  the  hoped-for  new  era, 
was  inaugurated;  whereas  in  so  far  as  the  French 
Revolution  was  successful,  it  was  an  intellectual 
revolution  resulting  from  the  spread  of  the  ideas 
of  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  and  the  other  great  French 
philosophers  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

In  order  to  study  the  realities,  let  us  consider 
the  two  cases  which  may  result  from  war.  Either 
a  territorial  conquest  is  made,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  War  of  1870,  when  Germany  annexed  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  or  no  territorial  annexation  takes  place, 
as  in  the  War  of  1866,  when  Prussia  did  not  annex 
any  part  of  the  Austrian  territory.  Collective 
selection  might  be  a  reality  in  the  first  case,  if  the 
conquering  state,  having  superior  institutions, 
introduced  them  immediately  into  the  new  posses- 
sions. But  this  is  far  from  being  always  the  case. 
The  victorious  state  very  often  has  institutions  not 
only  inferior  to  those  enjoyed  by  the  conquered 
territory  before  the  war,  but  the  institutions 
introduced  into  the  conquered  territory  may  be 
inferior  to  those  established  in  the  remainder  of 
the  victorious  state,  as  illustrated  by  the  military 
government  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  symbolized  by 
the  Zabem  incident,  or  the  Russian  government 
of  Finland  or  Poland.  Where  does  the  pretended 
positive  selection  take  place  in  such  a  case?  It 
might  be  said,  on  the  contrary,  that  if  war  consti- 


Abasement  of  Human  Species     151 

tutes  a  collective  selection  (which  is  not  true)  the 
political  effects  are  much  more  likely  to  be  regres- 
sive than  progressive.  War  has  as  a  result  des- 
potism; and  despotism  leads  to  a  limitation  and 
enfeeblement  of  the  social  life,  not  alone  among 
the  conquered,  but  also  among  the  conquerors, 
because  it  is  impossible  to  oppress  a  subjugated 
people  without  oppressing  at  the  same  time  those 
who  subjugate  them.  It  is  absurd,  then,  to 
maintain  that  war  has  ever  been  able  to  produce, 
from  this  point  of  view,  the  progress  of  civilization. 
Renan  repeats  the  same  argument  in  another 
form.  If  the  fear  of  being  defeated  were  not  al- 
ways present,  he  says,  "it  is  difficult  to  say  to  what 
degree  of  abasement  the  human  species  might 
descend."^    And  on  the  same  page,  he  continues: 

When  a  population  has  produced  everything  which 
it  is  able  to  produce  with  its  resources,  it  would  begin 
to  slow  up  if  the  fear  of  its  neighbour  did  not  spur  it 
on;  because  the  object  of  humanity  is  not  enjoyment; 
to  acquire  and  to  create  is  the  work  of  force  and  of 
youth:  to  enjoy  is  the  part  of  decrepitude.  The  fear 
of  conquest  is  thus,  in  human  affairs,  a  necessary 
spur.^ 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  security  never  produces 
the  "abasement  of  the  human  species,"  as  Renan 
affirms,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  precisely 
the  fear  of  conquest  which  produces  this  abase- 

»  See  supra,  p.  12. 

*  La  rejorme  intellectuelle  et  morale,  p.  III. 


152  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

ment.  Since  the  Treaty  of  Paris  in  1783,  for 
example,  the  United  States  of  America  has  had  no 
fear  of  being  conquered  by  its  neighbours.  During 
these  years,  however,  it  would  seem  that  some 
progress  has  been  made.  The  population  has 
increased  from  four  millions  to  more  than  one 
hundred  millions;  in  agriculture,  in  industry, 
commerce,  technical  invention,  and  in  science, 
America  may  make  some  claim  to  be  considered 
with  the  other  nations  in  the  front  rank  of  pro- 
gress. There  are  even  countries  in  Europe,  like 
Norway,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Switzerland, 
which  have  not  been  under  the  fear  of  being 
conquered  during  the  past  half-century  or  more 
on  account  of  the  political  situation  caused  by  the 
rivalry  of  the  Great  Powers ;  but  nevertheless  these 
countries  have  made  great  progress.  The  rural 
economy  of  Denmark,  for  example,  is  a  model 
for  the  world,  and  much  superior  to  that  of  its 
bellicose  neighbour,  Prussia. 

The  enormous  cost  of  the  British  navy  was 
borne  because  of  the  fear  of  German  aggression. 
The  huge  armaments  of  Germany  were  voted  be- 
cause of  the  fear  of  conquest  by  France  and  Russia. 
And  not  only  did  the  fear  inspired  by  these  arma- 
ments lead  to  an  international  reign  of  terror,  and, 
as  we  have  seen,  logically  and  inevitably  to  war, 
but,  even  in  times  of  peace,  the  "organized  insan- 
ity" of  the  international  armament  competition, 
as  Lloyd-George  has  called  it,  has  constituted  a 
very  serious  danger  to  the  future  of  the  European 


Fear  Degrades  the  Human  Race  153 

races.  In  England,  for  example,  the  problem  of 
unemployment  has  been  urgent  and  almost 
continually  present.  At  times  the  number  of 
unemployed  has  run  up  into  the  millions.  If  it 
had  been  possible  for  Great  Britain  to  cut  down 
its  expenditures  for  national  defence,  this  would 
have  released  capital  for  productive  purposes 
and  given  employment  to  these  millions  of  men.  ^ 

Moreover,  myriads  of  the  population  of  Great 
Britain  live  constantly  below  the  bread-line,  never 
having  enough  to  eat,  physically  weakened,  un- 
able to  resist  the  attacks  of  disease.  The  statistics 
of  the  recruiting  officers  represent  a  tragic  national 
drama  of  physical  degeneration  of  millions  of  the 
men  of  Great  Britain,  due  to  insufficient  nourish- 
ment, living  in  the  slums,  etc.  If  it  had  not  been 
necessary  to  divert  so  large  a  proportion  of  the 
British  national  income  to  the  unproductive  pur- 
poses of  armament,  more  would  have  been  avail- 
able for  employment  in  productive  enterprises, 
for  paying  a  living  wage,  which  would  in  turn  have 
increased  the  productive  power  of  individual 
labourers;  more  could  have  been  devoted  to  social 
reforms,  such  as  the  abolition  of  slums  under  a 
rational  system  of  city-planning.  By  what  species 
of  argument  can  the  philosophy  of  force  maintain 
that  the  state  of  misery  in  which  these  millions 
are  compelled  to  live  contributes  to  the  progress 

^  Bastiat  has  estimated  that  when  one  man  is  released  from 
military  or  naval  services  the  equivalent  capital  released  at  the 
same  time  is  sufficient  to  give  employment  to  two  men. 


154  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

of  the  British  people?  It  is  clear  that  if  they  had 
been  well-nourished,  they  would  have  been  strong 
and  vigorous,  able  to  resist  disease,  instead  of  an 
easy  prey  to  epidemics.  It  is  misery  which 
degrades  the  human  race  and  enfeebles  it.  It  is 
precisely  this  "fear  of  being  defeated"  which  is  the 
cause  of  misery  and  of  the  degeneration  of  the  race. 

Russia  is  another  example  of  the  effects  of  the 
"fear  of  being  defeated."  The  fear  of  the  arma- 
ments of  Germany  and  Austria  has  compelled  the 
Russians  to  maintain  an  immense  standing  army. 
This  has  required  an  immense  revenue,  and  to 
produce  the  revenue,  the  traffic  in  vodka  was 
extended  until  it  tmdermined  the  physical  and 
mental  productiveness  of  the  race  by  more  than 
thirty  per  cent.,  according  to  the  estimates 
of  the  Russian  government  officials.  Education, 
social  reform,  even  in  a  country  in  which  eighty- 
five  per  cent,  of  the  people  cannot  read  or  write, 
had  to  be  neglected  because  of  the  "fear  of  being 
defeated,"  which  Renan  praises  so  highly,  but 
which  is  in  reality  the  cause  of  the  abasement  of 
the  human  species. 

Many  other  illustrations  could  be  given,  but 
they  may  all  be  summed  up  in  a  number.  It  is 
well  known  that  the  Great  Powers  can  devote 
only  one-third  of  their  national  revenue  to  the 
productive  works  of  progress  and  civilization. 
The  other  two-thirds  are  swallowed  up  in  the 
extraordinary  expenditures  caused  by  this  "fear 
of  being  defeated."    Education  must  be  neglected, 


Anthropological  Romances        155 

works  of  social  reform  and  hygiene  must  be  post- 
poned, and  the  finest  flower  of  civilization  must  be 
prevented  from  blossoming  in  each  nation  because 
the  international  reign  of  terror  cuts  off  the 
economic  strength  of  the  nations  at  the  roots. 
With  more  abundant  resources,  the  race  could  be 
better  nourished,  better  educated,  higher  in  all 
respects  in  the  biological  scale.  As  soon  as  we 
examine  the  actual  facts,  we  see  how  superficial 
are  the  views  represented  in  the  quotations  from 
Renan  and  Schallmayer.  And  as  sociology  becomes 
more  truly  a  science,  it  will  become  more  and  more 
necessary  to  take  account  of  these  invisible  facts  of 
the  daily  life  about  us,  and  to  abandon  the  obsolete 
doctrines  of  the  catastrophic  aberration. 

We  see,  then,  that  the  forces  of  social  progress 
are  tremendously  complex.  To  assign  all  this 
progress  to  a  single  battle,  or  even  to  a  series  of 
battles,  means  that  we  must  voluntarily  close  our 
eyes  to  the  most  common  phenomena  of  social 
life;  it  means  that  we  must  place  oiu-selves  on 
metaphysical  heights,  so  far  removed  from  the 
world  of  actualities  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 
discern  fact  and  reality.  To  attribute  all  progress 
to  one  factor,  war,  and  to  neglect  all  others,  is  to 
fall  into  a  more  colossal  aberration  than  has  been 
the  misfortune  of  scientists  in  any  other  depart- 
ment of  human  knowledge. 

Somewhat  related  to  the  cataclysmic  theory  of 
social  progress,  is  a  group  of  errors  which  have 


156  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

been  called  the  anthropological  romances.  Follow- 
ing the  example  of  Hobbes,  a  most  tragic  picture 
of  the  primitive  condition  of  the  human  species 
has  been  drawn  by  the  philosophy  of  force.  Ac- 
cording to  this  picture,  murder  was  a  permanent 
institution  among  our  ancestors  and  was  com- 
mitted under  the  slightest  pretext.  Cannibalism 
was  practised  upon  a  large  scale.  At  the  begin- 
ning, man  was  a  pugnacious  and  bloodthirsty 
animal,  in  comparison  with  whom  the  anthropo- 
morphic apes  were  almost  virtue  personified. 
The  following  quotation  will  serve  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  picture  of  the  primitive  life  of  man  as 
portrayed  by  the  philosophy  of  force : 

Without  foresight  or  prudence,  primitive  man  was 
far  from  being  of  that  nature  which  has  heretofore 
been  attributed  to  him — following  the  principle  of 
the  greatest  happiness,  or  of  the  least  effort.  He 
had  no  acquaintance  with  labour  or  with  provision  for 
the  future,  nor  with  exchange,  nor  society,  nor  morality. 
To  these  defects  he  added  a  ferocity  and  aggressive- 
ness, a  lust  for  violence,  which  led  him  to  commit  the 
most  useless  cruelties,  and  to  appeal  to  arms  to  settle 
the  slightest  quarrel.  These  traits  necessarily  brought 
wars  in  their  train,  and  what  wars  they  were!^ 

These  romances  have  been  called  anthropological 
because  they  have  been  developed  mainly  by  the 
anthropologists  of  Hobbesean  tendencies.  But 
they  have  since  been  adopted  by  the  sociologists, 

*  J.  Lagorgette,  Le  rdle  de  la  guerre,  p.  53. 


Imaginary  Primitive  Life  of  Man  157 

and  now  form  an  integral  part  of  the  philosophy 
of  force.  They  are  called  romances  because  they 
are  based  entirely  upon  a  priori  reasoning,  without 
the  slightest  basis  of  evidence  to  justify  them. 
The  errors  are  characterized  by  a  confident 
affirmation  of  the  conditions  and  events  which 
must  have  taken  place  some  two  hundred  thousand 
years  ago,  although  no  written  record  has  come 
down  to  us  from  this  prehistoric  period,  no 
witness  was  present  when  they  are  alleged  to 
have  occurred,  and  the  sociologists  who  make  the 
affirmations  so  confidently  offer  not  the  slightest 
scientific  evidence.  Lacking  all  support  of  scien- 
tific foundation,  these  deductions  are  neverthe- 
less put  forward  as  statements  of  fact,  without  so 
much  as  a  qualifying  "it  seems  to  me"  or  "in  my 
opinion." 

Among  the  most  common  of  the  anthropological 
romances  are  the  romance  of  primitive  slavery, 
and  the  romance  of  the  pretended  fundamental 
hostility  between  the  tribes  and  hordes  of  primi- 
tive men.  Of  these,  we  have  already  had  an 
illustration  of  the  slavery  romance,  which  has  been 
developed  in  great  detail  by  Professor  Lester  F. 
Ward.'  For  convenience,  the  end  of  the  quota- 
tion is  reproduced  here : 

The  first  step  in  the  whole  process  is  the  conquest 
of  one  race  by  another.  .  .  .  The  greater  part  of 
the  conquered  race  is  enslaved,  and  the  institution  of 

'  See  supra,  p.  ii. 


158   The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

slavery  begins  here.  The  slaves  are  compelled  to 
work,  and  labor  in  the  economic  sense  begins  here. 
The  enslavement  of  the  producers  and  compelling 
them  to  work  was  the  only  way  in  which  mankind 
could  have  been  taught  to  labor,  and  therefore  the 
whole  industrial  system  of  society  begins  here.  * 

Since  Professor  Ward  was  not  present  at  the 
moment  when,  "the  conquered  race  having  been 
reduced  to  slavery,"  "labor,  in  the  economic 
sense,  began,"  he  must  have  deduced,  a  posteriori 
what  seemed  to  him  the  most  probable  course  of 
events.  We  are  not  dealing,  then,  with  positive 
science,  but  with  mental  speculations.  But  as 
soon  as  we  begin  to  apply  the  test  of  logical 
analysis  to  these  mental  speculations,  it  becomes 
evident  that  slavery  could  not  have  been  a  very 
ancient  institution,  and  therefore  that  it  could  not 
have  been  a  primitive  institution.  We  find  that 
slavery  must  have  come  much  later  than  the 
establishment  of  industrial  labour.     Slavery,  there- 

'  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  March,  1905,  p.  594.  A  num- 
ber of  illustrations  have  been  taken  from  the  writings  of  Professor 
Lester  F.  Ward,  especially  because  of  the  position  of  leadership 
which  his  intellectual  power  and  magnetic  personality  secured 
for  him  among  American  sociologists  of  the  last  generation. 
Fortunately,  the  work  of  Professor  Franklin  H.  Giddings,  who 
may  be  considered  the  leader  of  modern  American  sociology,  is 
free  from  the  distortion  of  the  philosophy  of  force.  In  his  The 
Principles  of  Sociology,  Professor  Giddings  frankly  takes  Adam 
Smith's  Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments  as  the  starting  point  for 
sociology  and  follows  Darwin,  in  finding  in  the  social  instincts — 
sympathy  and  the  consciousness  of  kind — the  chief  cause  of 
social  progress. 


Romance  of  Primitive  Slavery     159 

fore,  has  not  been  able  to  produce  the  civilization 
of  man;  rather  it  is  civilization  which  has  made 
slavery.  During  tens  of  thousands  of  years  man 
must  have  survived  without  slavery,  and  in  this 
long  period  he  raised  himself  to  so  great  a  height 
above  the  other  animals  that  we  may  say  he 
became  civilized. 

The  proof  that  slavery  could  not  have  been  a 
primitive  institution  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
establishment  of  slavery  can  only  take  place  in 
a  relatively  advanced  state  of  society.  It  pre- 
supposes _the  existence  of  the  State,  i.e.,  an 
organized  group  with  definite  boundaries  in  which 
the  bond  uniting  the  citizens  is  territorial,  and  in 
which  the  division  of  labour  has  already  been 
carried  very  far.  In  fact,  slavery  requires  a 
powerful  public  force  which  can  carry  out  its  will 
by  imposing  fear,  without  which  the  slaves  would 
not  consent  to  submit  to  the  sufferings  of  servitude. 
The  slave  always  has  the  tendency  to  leave  his 
master  and  flee.  In  order  to  prevent  him  from 
doing  so,  it  is  necessary  to  have  him  under  sur- 
veillance, more  or  less  vigilantly  organized;  and 
this  surveillance  necessarily  presupposes  territorial 
limits  clearly  marked,  because  it  could  not  be 
extended  to  the  confines  of  the  universe.  But 
the  organization  of  States  on  the  basis  of  territory 
is  a  very  recent  fact  in  history.  While  the  human 
species  has  existed  for  possibly  five  hundred 
thousand  years,  the  most  ancient  organized  State 
was  formed  at  most,  ten  thousand  years  ago.     At 


i6o  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

this  comparatively  recent  epoch,  there  were  not 
more  than  two  or  three  States  on  the  entire  globe. 
Humanity  was  therefore  without  slavery  for 
probably  forty-nine  fiftieths  of  its  existence.  In 
the  light  of  these  facts,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose 
that  slavery  was  a  primitive  institution,  without 
which  civilization  would  never  have  been  possible. 
Moreover,  it  is  easy  to  demonstrate  that  not 
only  the  division  of  labour,  but  even  labour  in 
an  economic  sense,  has  preceded  slavery,  and  has 
not  followed  it.  The  anthropomorphic  apes, 
which  lived  in  troupes,  did  not  have  any  slaves. 
We  can  easily  understand  why.  Among  other 
reasons,  it  would  not  have  been  useful  to  them, 
since  the  division  of  labour  was  still  completely 
embryonic  at  that  time.  A  consideration  of  the 
elementary  facts  of  the  case  demonstrates  that 
the  division  of  labour  was  developed  in  human 
society  before  slavery.  Without  the  division  of 
labour,  the  master  would  have  been  bound  as 
much  as  the  slave,  since  it  would  have  been  neces- 
sary for  him  to  remain  with  the  slave  at  all  times, 
directing  his  actions.  Thus  it  would  have  required 
two  men  to  do  the  work  of  one.  We  find  the 
beginning  of  a  division  of  labour,  even  among  the 
animals  who  live  in  troupes  (the  setting  of  sen- 
tries, the  obedience  to  leaders,  etc.).  At  first  the 
division  of  labour  takes  place  among  the  sexes; 
the  men  go  hunting,  the  women  remain  behind 
and  prepare  the  food  and  clothing.  The  pre- 
historic remains  show  us  that  labour  commenced 


Slavery  the  Result  of  Civilization     i6i 

with  the  most  simple  operations,  such  as  the 
gathering  of  fruits,  and  developed  with  the  crea- 
tion of  instruments  and  tools,  which,  beginning 
with  the  palaeolithic  stone  hatchet  have  advanced 
to  the  highly  complex  and  perfected  machinery  of 
our  own  time.  We  can  hardly  imagine  the  first 
man  who  fashioned  a  flint  hatchet  saying  to  him- 
self, as  the  anthropological  romance  would  have 
us  believe  he  said:  "Now  the  period  of  labour 
in  the  economic  sense  has  commenced;  I  will  go 
and  reduce  my  neighbour  to  slavery."  For  one 
thing,  he  did  not  have  the  means  of  reducing  his 
neighbour  to  slavery,  because  his  neighbour  was 
an  individual  who  possessed  just  as  much  force 
as  he  himself.  Man  did  not  commence  by  slavery 
for  the  same  reason  that  man,  in  common  with 
the  other  animals,  did  not  commence  by  being  a 
cannibal, — because  his  own  kind  was  for  him 
the  most  dangerous  prey.  The  first  savage  has 
therefore  followed  the  line  of  least  resistance. 
He  must  have  submitted  to  the  universal  law  which 
determines  the  direction  of  force.  He  must  have 
manufactured  his  hatchet  himself,  and,  after  this 
first  hatchet,  have  come  in  the  same  manner  the 
innumerable  other  tools  which  have  been  fashioned 
by  our  ancestors  from  the  Palaeolithic  Age  to  the 
sixtieth  century  before  our  era,  when  the  great 
States  of  the  valleys  of  the  Nile  and  the  Euphra- 
tes were  organized.  By  this  epoch,  the  division 
of  labour  had  made  considerable  progress,  and 
when   the  workshops  were  in  operation,   it  was 


i62  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

possible  to  imagine  the  advantage  of  slave  labour. 
Then  the  leaders  of  expeditions  of  conquest  would 
find  it  advantageous  to  bring  back,  not  only  the 
wealth  of  the  conquered  countries,  but  even 
the  inhabitants  of  those  countries.  For  it  was 
the  development  of  the  division  of  labour  alone 
which  made  it  possible  to  give  them  work  to  do 
immediately,  so  that  they  would  not  constitute, 
for  a  single  instant,  useless  mouths  to  be  fed. 
But  this  highly  developed  division  of  labour  pre- 
supposes the  establishment  of  labour  in  an  econo- 
mic sense,  and  therefore  of  a  comparatively  high 
degree  of  civiUzation.  Civilization,  then,  has  not 
been  the  result  of  war  and  slavery,  but  war  and 
slavery  have  been  the  result  of  civilization. 

The  anthropological  romance  of  the  pretended 
fundamental  hostility  of  the  primitive  hordes  of 
hiimanity,  which  has  been  quite  popular  since 
the  time  of  Hobbes,  is  illustrated  by  the  following 
quotation  from  Ratzenhofer: 

Man,  being  a  social  animal,  felt  himself  united  to 
his  original  group  by  the  sympathy  of  blood  relation- 
ship. But  when  he  came  into  contact  with  a  man 
from  another  horde,  the  two  individuals,  conscious 
of  belonging  to  two  different  communities,  fell  into  a 
frenzied  condition  of  fear  and  terror.  Either  they 
killed  each  other,  or  they  severed  all  common  relation- 
ship by  flight.  In  the  same  way  two  hordes  which 
came  into  relationship  fell  into  a  condition  of  fear 
and  fury,  as  a  result  of  the  enmity  of  blood.  Either 
they  cast  themselves  upon  each  other  in  a  struggle  of 


Romance  of  the  Hobbesian  War    163 

extermination,  or  else  they  fled  from  each  other  in 
order  to  avoid  all  contact.^ 

And  in  a  more  recent  work,  Ratzenhofer  adds: 

Peaceful  relations  between  the  societies  were  for  a 
long  time  impossible.  Those  groups  which  belonged 
to  different  races  and  to  different  civilizations  avoided 
all  contact  as  being  injurious.  When  societies  had 
neighbouring  habitations,  their  relationships  easily 
became  very  acute.  The  mutual  political  relations 
resembled  a  game  of  chess  in  which  the  object  was  for 
the  ones  that  were  best  informed  to  seize  quickly  the 
opportune  moment  to  fall  upon  the  neighbour  and 
subjugate  him.  ^ 

It  is  necessary  to  repeat  that  this  anthropo- 
logical romance,  like  that  of  primitive  slavery,  is 
made  out  of  the  whole  cloth  of  pure  mental 
speculation.  No  witness  was  present  two  hundred 
thousand  years  ago  to  describe  the  conduct  of  the 
human  tribes,  and  when  we  examine  such  evidence 
as  we  have,  and  apply  logic  and  common  sense 
to  the  problem,  Ratzenhofer' s  imaginary  process 
seems  to  be  very  far  from  the  probabilities. 

In  general,  we  have  three  means  of  obtaining 
information  concerning  primitive  man.  One  is 
the  body  of  biological  and  geological  facts,  from 
which  we  may  infer  the  nature  of  primitive  man 
and   the   conditions    under   which   he    lived.     A 

'  Wesen  und  Zweck  der  Poliiik,  Leipsic,  Brockhaus,  1903, 
p.  9. 

'  Sociologische  Erkentniss,  p.  288. 


164  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

second  is  an  increasing  mass  of  archaeological 
materials,  which  reveal  many  things  about  the  life 
of  the  first  men  who  left  traces  of  their  existence ; 
and  the  third  is  a  general  parallelism  between 
some  features  of  primitive  society  and  some 
features  of  the  lowest  societies  of  existing  savages, 
which  may  be  considered  as  in  a  condition  of 
arrested  development. 

If  we  examine  the  biological  facts  first,  it  would 
seem  that  the  further  we  go  into  the  past,  the  more 
man  should  resemble  the  animals.  Therefore, 
he  ought  to  conduct  himself  as  the  animals  do. 
How  does  it  come,  then,  that  when  two  bands 
of  wolves  meet  each  other,  they  do  not  "cast 
themselves  upon  each  other  in  a  struggle  of 
extermination"?  And  this  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  wolves  are  carnivorous  animals,  so  that 
if  one  band  conquered  the  other,  the  conquerors 
might  eat  the  conquered,  which  would  be  an  advan- 
tage. But  for  frugivorous  animals,  of  what  use 
would  be  a  struggle  of  extermination?  We 
observe  that  bands  of  monkeys,  for  example, 
do  not  engage  in  any  struggle  of  extermination 
when  they  come  into  contact.  Even  Ratzenhofer 
contradicts  himself  by  admitting  this : 

The  animal  species  nearest  to  man,  or  the  anthro- 
poid monkeys,  are  not  combative;  they  avoid  relations 
with  hostile  animals,  and  only  become  dangerous 
when  they  are  attacked  or  over-excited.  ^ 

'  Sociologische  Erkentniss,  p.  133. 


Romance  of  Primitive  Hostility   165 

Why  should  the  primitive  hordes  engage  in  a 
struggle  of  extermination  at  every  meeting?  No 
animal  acts  without  having  some  object,  and  the 
more  closely  man  resembles  an  animal,  the  more 
he  ought  to  act  in  accord  with  this  rule.  Ratzen- 
hofer  tells  us  the  reason  for  this  hostility  of  the 
primitive  hordes.  He  says  that,  "belonging  to 
different  races  and  different  civilizations,  they 
must  resent  all  contact  as  injurious."  The  expres- 
sion, "different  civilizations,''  is  worth  noting,  as 
belonging  to  primitive  time,  when  there  was  no 
civilization,  but  a  state  of  nature  like  that  among 
the  anthropomorphic  monkeys.  It  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  differences  of  civilization  at  this  epoch 
could  have  resulted  in  these  terrible  struggles, 
when  these  differences  did  not  exist.  At  the  period 
when  differences  in  civilization  appeared,  primitive 
times  had  been  past  by  thousands  and  thousands 
of  years.  Nor  is  the  difference  of  races  any  better 
reason  for  these  terrible  struggles.  When  the 
chimpanzees  and  the  makis  meet  in  the  tropical 
forest,  they  do  not  throw  themselves  on  each  other 
in  a  struggle  of  extermination,  even  though  there  is 
a  greater  difference  between  the  makis  and  the 
chimpanzees  than  between  the  most  widely  sepa- 
rated of  the  human  races. 

Moreover,  Ratzenhofer,  with  the  characteristic 
superficiality  of  the  philosophy  of  force,  fails  to 
see  that  contact  between  widely  different  bands 
and  races  would  have  been  impossible  in  primitive 
times.     He  confuses  conditions  in  modern  times, 


1 66  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

when  we  have  perfected  means  of  communication, 
so  that  different  races,  such  as  Europeans  and 
Patagonians,  come  into  contact,  with  primitive 
periods,  when  there  were  no  means  of  locomotion 
except  by  foot.  It  would  have  been  impossible 
in  primitive  times  to  go  from  Europe  to  Patagonia. 
Primitive  man  might,  indeed,  have  made  a  voyage 
on  foot  from  what  is  now  Canada,  to  what  is  now 
La  Plata,  but  a  voyage  of  this  character  would  have 
required  an  exceedingly  long  period  of  time.  On 
account  of  the  difficulties  of  commimication,  long 
voyages  were  very  difficult  for  primitive  man, 
and  the  contacts  must  have  taken  place  only 
between  tribes  more  or  less  neighbouring.  But  if 
they  were  neighboiu-s,  they  would  have  been 
subject  to  the  same  conditions  of  the  habitat, 
and  would  not  have  been  very  different  in  develop- 
ment. 

The  data  from  archaeological  materials  also 
demonstrate  that  Ratzenhofer  is  wrong  in  assert- 
ing that  peaceful  relations  were  impossible  among 
primitive  men.  Even  in  neolithic  times,  a 
considerable  commerce  and  exchange  existed, 
and  we  find  objects  of  Asiatic  origin  in  Europe 
at  this  period,  while  the  Phoenicians  practised 
numerous  exchanges  with  the  populations  of 
western  Europe  at  a  period  when  they  still  lived 
in  a  condition  of  small  tribal  groups,  related  only 
by  bonds  of  common  descent.  Finally,  the 
theory  of  actual  causes,  which  teaches  us  to  look 
for  a  parallelism  between  primitive  society  and 


Evidence  of  Actual  Social  Processes    167 

the  lowest  societies  in  existing  savages,  renders  a 
verdict  against  the  primitive  hostility  romance. 
Thus,  M.  Lagorgette  says: 

The  experience  of  a  great  number  of  travellers  shows 
that  almost  all  the  non-civilized  races  exhibit  a  very 
kindly  attitude  on  the  first  visit,  and  that  the  later 
hostile  dispositions  are  reprisals  for  the  evils  which 
they  have  suffered  from  the  civilized  races.  ^ 

Even  Ratzenhofer  confirms  this  evidence.^  He 
emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  first  Europeans  land- 
ing in  America  in  the  fifteenth  century  were 
received  in  a  most  friendly  fashion  by  the  abo- 
rigines. But  if  there  is  no  combat,  no  struggle  of 
extermination,  on  first  contact  between  races  so  dif- 
ferent as  the  Spanish  and  the  Redskins  of  America, 
still  less  ought  there  to  have  been  any  between 
primitive  tribes  who  resembled  each  other  so  much 
more  closely.  To  affirm  that  peaceful  contacts 
are  possible  now,  but  that  they  were  not  possible 
two  hundred  thousand  years  ago,  is  to  run  counter 
to  the  evidence  of  actual  social  processes.  We 
have  seen  that  geology  became  a  positive  sci- 
ence, solely  when  it  adopted  the  theory  of  actual 
causes.  Surely  it  is  high  time  for  sociology  to 
abandon  the  categorical  affirmations  of  the 
anthropological  romances  and  begin  to  assume  the 
character  of  a  serious  science,  dealing  not  with 

^  Le  role  de  la  guerre,  p.  210. 

'  See  his  Sociologische  Erkentniss,  p.  134. 


i68  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

fantastic    imaginary    conditions,     but    with    the 
realities  of  the  Hfe  about  us. 

Another  special  error  of  the  sociological  order  is 
the  pretended  antiquity  of  war.  All  through  the 
philosophy  of  force,  we  find  primitive  humanity 
represented  in  the  form  of  small  hordes  constantly 
pillaging  and  massacring  each  other.  Since  we 
do  not  possess  any  documents  concerning  this 
epoch,  this  representation  belongs  also  in  the 
category  of  the  anthropological  romances.  This 
romance  is  invented  on  account  of  the  necessity 
for  defending  a  thesis.  In  showing  that  war  has 
existed  from  primitive  times,  and  that  neverthe- 
less humanity  has  become  civilized,  the  purpose 
is  to  demonstrate  that  war  has  made  civilization. 

We  have  seen  that  primitive  man  did  not  wage 
war,  because,  in  common  with  all  the  other 
animals,  he  had  a  hereditary  instinct  which  pre- 
vented him  from  attacking  his  own  kind.^  As 
Darwin  says,  "the  instincts  of  the  lower  animals 
are  never  so  perverted"  as  to  lead  them  regularly 
to  unnatural  acts,  such  as  destroying  their  own 
species;  and  he  shows  that  these  instincts  must 
have  been  supreme  in  the  antiqmty  of  the  human 
race: 

If  we  look  back  to  an  extremely  remote  epoch, 
before  man  had  arrived  at  the  dignity  of  manhood, 
he  would  have  been  guided  more  by  instinct  and  less 

*  See  supra,  p.  68. 


The  Pretended  Antiquity  of  War  169 

by  reason  than  are  the  lowest  savages  at  the  present 
time.* 

At  the  very  earliest,  then,  war  could  not  have 
taken  place  until  a  comparatively  high  degree 
of  intelligence  had  been  developed,  which  enabled 
man  to  overcome  this  strong  hereditary  instinct. 
When  men  massacre  each  other,  it  is  said  that 
they  act  like  animals.  This  is  a  profound  error; 
it  is  when  men  do  not  massacre  each  other  that 
they  act  like  animals.  This  fallacy  is  a  part  of 
the  error  which  confuses  struggle  with  combat  be- 
tween members  of  the  same  species.  Lions  struggle 
every  day  with  antelopes,  but  they  do  not  fight 
with  other  lions.  Man  struggles  every  day  as 
the  lion  does,  that  is  to  say  against  the  animals 
and  the  plants.  Every  head  of  cattle  killed  in  a 
slaughter  house  is  a  part  of  this  struggle.  But  if 
man  had  acted  as  animals  do  with  regard  to  his 
own  species,  the  federation  of  the  human  race 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  62.  It  is  interesting  to  find  Darwin 
quoting  on  the  same  page  and  with  apparent  approval  the 
following  comment  on  this  passage  by  a  writer  in  the  Spectator: 

"Mr.  Darwin  finds  himself  compelled  to  reintroduce  a  new 
doctrine  of  the  fall  of  man.  He  shows  that  the  instincts  of  the 
higher  animals  are  far  nobler  than  the  habits  of  savage  races 
of  men,  and  he  finds  himself,  therefore,  compelled  to  reintroduce 
— in  a  form  of  the  substantial  orthodoxy  of  which  he  appears  to 
be  quite  unconscious — and  to  introduce  as  a  scientific  hypothesis 
the  doctrine  that  man's  gain  of  knowledge  was  the  cause  of  a 
temporary  but  long  enduring  moral  deterioration.  .  .  .  What  does 
the  Jewish  tradition  of  the  moral  degeneration  of  man  through 
his  snatching  at  a  knowledge  forbidden  him  by  his  highest  instinct 
assert  beyond  this?" 


170  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

would  have  been  an  accomplished  fact  many 
centuries  ago. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  easy  to  demonstrate 
that  war  has  not  preceded  production,  as  the 
philosophy  of  force  holds,  but  that  production 
must  have  preceded  war.  This  is  because  war 
requires  the  storing  up  of  capital,  which  must 
have  been  the  result  of  a  preceding  productive 
labour.  Even  in  the  most  primitive  times,  a 
savage  who  went  to  rob  his  neighbour  must  have 
provided  himself  with  enough  food  so  that  he 
would  not  die  of  starvation,  and  so  that  he  would 
have  sufficient  strength  to  insure  some  chance  of 
victory.  Moreover,  he  would  only  be  able  to  steal 
things  which  were  light  and  easily  transportable, 
so  that  he  would  still  be  under  the  necessity  of 
obtaining  bulky  articles  by  productive  labour.  It 
is  somewhat  ludicrous  to  imagine  the  conqueror 
removing  the  houses,  the  workshops,  and  the  crops 
of  wheat,  for  the  sake  of  saving  himself  the  trouble 
of  productive  labour  by  which  he  could  have  pro- 
cured these  things  directly. 

But  it  may  be  objected,  suppose  he  forces  the 
vanquished  to  perform  this  labour.  This  would 
be  very  well;  but  it  would  be  necessary  for  the 
conqueror  to  subject  the  territory  of  the  van- 
quished to  his  direct  domination,  which  would 
demand  a  high  degree  of  governmental  organiza- 
tion, possible  only  to  a  fairly  advanced  degree  of 
civilization.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  assume  that  the 
conqueror  could  require  his  slaves  to  perform  this 


War  a  Comparatively  Recent  Fact  171 

labour,  for  as  we  have  seen,  the  institution  of 
slavery  could  not  be  established  until  a  State  with 
territorial  limits  had  been  created,  which  also 
demands  a  very  advanced  state  of  civilization. 

Moreover,  it  is  easy  to  demonstrate,  not  only 
that  humanity  has  not  commenced  with  war,  but 
also  that  systematic  war,  war  in  the  state  of  a 
permanent  institution,  as  it  exists  in  our  time,  is  a 
comparatively  recent  fact.  This  is  not  because 
of  the  innate  goodness  of  earlier  men.  The  apes 
are  not  better  than  men,  but  they  are  not  organ- 
ized systematically  and  perpetually  for  war.  This 
is  because  such  an  organization  demands  high  men- 
tal faculties  which  they  do  not  possess.  As  long  as 
man  was  not  highly  developed  he  could  not  organ- 
ize systematic  war  for  the  same  reason.  Mr. 
V.  de  Lapouge  gives  the  evidence  thus: 

We  do  not  find  war,  nor  even  individual  murder 
existing  among  the  highly  developed  monkeys. 
Contrary  to  the  opinions  of  certain  palceontologists, 
the  instinct  of  crime  appears  to  be  developed  in  a 
measure  as  our  species  has  disengaged  itself  from 
the  rest  of  the  animal  kingdom.  Murder,  and  war 
which  is  assassination  by  wholesale,  are  human  acts 
and  not  the  atavistic  legacies  of  far  distant  ancestors. 
It  is  with  the  progress  of  civilization  that  the  art  of 
killing  has  been  developed,  that  war  has  ceased  to 
have  personal  motives,  and  has  become  an  anonymous 
massacre  of  men  indifferent  to  each  other.  ^ 

'  Les  sHections  sociales,  p.  209. 


172  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

Mr.  Lagorgette  also  makes  a  very  penetrating 
remark : 

Animals  are  almost  entirely  ignorant  of  fratricidal 
struggle.  On  account  of  lack  of  intelligence,  they  do 
not  recognize  the  apparent  usefulness  which  it  would 
have  for  them  to  destroy  their  own  kind,  and  as  a 
result  they  do  not  attack  them.^ 

From  the  first  sporadic  acts  of  robbery  and 
exploitation  to  the  condition  of  permanent  war 
which  exists  in  our  time,  there  is  an  immense 
distance.  The  successive  scale  of  banditism  which 
lies  between  is  something  like  this:  clandestine 
theft,  robbery  by  force,  raids,  permanent  tribute, 
and  finally,  territorial  conquest,  i.e.,  complete 
exploitation  of  the  vanquished  by  taxes  levied  for 
the  conqueror.  Thousands  of  years  must  have 
been  necessary  for  humanity  to  mount  the  succes- 
sive degrees  of  this  disastrous  scale.  The  period  of 
sporadic  raids  must  have  lasted  for  many  centuries, 
because  the  human  race,  during  a  long  period, 
could  not  conceive  of  a  more  systematic  form  of 
pillage.  Of  all  forms  of  exploitation,  political 
conquest  is  necessarily  the  most  recent,  since  it 
presupposes  an  intellectual  and  political  develop- 
ment of  high  order.  However,  it  is  the  desire 
for  political  conquest  which  has  given  birth  to 
standing  armies,  and  it  is  the  creation  of  standing 
armies  which  has  produced  the  state  of  systematic 

*  Le  rdle  de  la  guerre,  p.  35. 


Systematic  War  Follows  Civilization  173 

war,  of  the  hostility  of  nations  erected  into  a 
principle  of  public  law,  which  exists  in  our  day. 

Permanent  and  organized  war  has  commenced 
successively  in  different  regions  of  the  earth,  in 
accordance  with  the  measure  in  which  they  have 
been  civilized.  In  Egypt,  in  Chaldea,  in  Assyria, 
there  existed  military  empires  from  the  thirtieth 
century  before  our  era.  But  it  is  also  necessary 
to  note  that  even  in  our  day,  there  are  peoples 
which  have  not  yet  arrived  at  the  stage  of  organized 
war,  precisely  because  they  have  remained  in  an 
inferior  state  of  social  development. 

The  process  employed  by  the  philosophy  of 
force  to  demonstrate  that  war  has  existed  from  the 
origin  of  humanity  is  very  simple.  The  name 
primitive  is  given  to  some  period  of  history  chosen 
in  the  most  arbitrary  fashion,  e.g.,  Egypt  in  the 
fortieth  century  before  our  era.  Since  war  has 
existed  from  this  epoch,  the  deduction  is  made, 
that  it  has  existed  from  the  origin  of  humanity. 
But  this  process  is  as  anti-scientific  as  it  is  simple. 
The  fortieth  century  before  our  era  is  an  epoch 
relatively  recent  in  comparison  with  the  age  of 
our  species,  which  has  probably  existed,  according 
to  specialists  in  geology,  for  at  least  five  hundred 
thousand  years.  The  Egyptian  civilization  under 
Mena  was  very  far  advanced;  it  had  already  a 
written  language,  and  its  civilization  was  the 
result  of  a  very  long  evolution.  Nothing  could  be 
more  deceptive  than  to  call  this  period  primitive. 
But  it  would  be  still  more  naive  to  believe  that 


174  The  Special  Sociological  Errors 

the  institutions  which  were  common  then  had 
fallen  from  the  skies.  If  systematic  warfare 
existed  in  Egypt  at  the  time  of  Mena,  it  must  have 
been  preceded  by  a  series  of  facts  dating  back  to 
the  animal  period  of  the  quaternary  time.  For 
Egypt  also,  then,  before  Mena  there  must  have 
been  a  primitive  period  in  which  systematic  war 
did  not  exist. 

But  what  is  more  recent  still  than  war,  is  the 
prestige  of  war.  The  idea  that  it  is  beneficial, 
and  has  been  the  cause  of  the  progress  of  the 
human  race,  is  a  philosophic  speculation.  How- 
ever, philosophic  speculations  are  relatively  very 
recent  facts  in  human  history,  extending  probably, 
not  beyond  the  seventh  century  before  our  era. 
The  period  of  the  glorification  of  war  extends  from 
about  the  time  of  Heraclitus  of  Ephesus,  who 
has  been  called  the  father  of  militarism,  and  who 
died  about  480  B.C.  In  our  age,  therefore,  when 
Marshal  von  Moltke  tells  us  that  war  is  an 
element  of  order  estabHshed  by  God,  he  formu- 
lates a  very  modern  idea,  considering  the  general 
antiquity  of  the  human  race,  but  an  idea  which 
has  already  wrought  more  evil  to  the  peoples  of 
Christendom  than  any  other  error  of  the  hiiman 
mind.  


CHAPTER  VI 

THE    DECLINING    ECONOMIC,    SOCIAL,    AND    MORAL 
EFFECTIVENESS  OF  FORCE 

IN  what  precedes,  we  have  been  concerned  with 
the  biological  and  sociological  errors  of  the 
philosophy  of  force,  and  of  the  doctrine  that  war  is 
the  cause  of  human  progress.  But  war — the  use 
of  force — is  never  an  end  in  itself;  it  is  always  a 
means  for  obtaining  some  other  desired  end.  In 
order  to  imderstand  how  far  force  can  be  effective 
for  securing  those  ends,  economic,  social,  and  moral, 
for  which  men  strive,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  the 
instrument  itself  more  critically,  and  to  clear  up 
certain  confusions  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  force 
when  used  in  human  relations. 

The  fundamental  confusion,  which  is  especially 
common  in  militaristic  writings,  leads  to  curious 
reasoning  in  a  circle.  In  recent  years,  an  interest- 
ing shifting  of  the  ground  of  the  militaristic 
defence  of  war  has  taken  place.  When  the  advo- 
cates of  the  philosophy  of  force  are  confronted  with 
the  moral  arguments  against  war,  they  usually 
take  refuge  in  the  thesis  that  the  causes  of  war 
are  economic  and  material.     But  when  they  are 

175 


176  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

overwhelmed  with  the  proofs  of  the  economic  fu- 
tiUty  of  war,  they  fall  back  upon  the  claim  that  the 
causes  of  war  are  ideal  and  moral,  not  economic  and 
material.  Thus  Admiral  Mahan,  whose  intellectual 
power  has  placed  him  in  the  front  rank  of  the  de- 
fenders of  militarism,  says  in  one  of  his  latest  works : 

The  armaments  of  the  European  States  now  are 
not  so  much  for  protection  against  conquest  as  to 
secure  to  themselves  the  utmost  possible  share  of  the 
unexploited  or  imperfectly  exploited  regions  of  the 
world — the  outlying  markets  or  storehouses  of  raw 
material,  which,  under  national  control,  shall  minister 
to  national  emoluments.^ 

This  naked  statement  of  the  materialistic  pur- 
pose of  armament  for  aggression  and  exploitation 
is  in  striking  contrast  with  Admiral  Mahan 's 
definition  of  the  purpose  of  armament  in  an  article 
written  shortly  afterwards,^  on  "The  Folly  of  The 
Hague."  Here  he  holds  up  armament  as  the 
beneficent  power  which  protects  the  quiet  and 
the  weak,  and  allows  them  to  sleep  securely.  His 
new  point  of  view  is : 

Armament  is  the  organization  and  consecration  of 
force  as  a  factor  in  the  maintenance  of  justice,  order, 
and  peace.     It  is  the  highest  expression  of  that  ele- 

*  Mahan,  Armaments  and  Arbitration,  or  The  Place  of  Force  in 
the  International  Relations  of  States,  1912,  p.  113. 

*  The  Semi-Monthly  Magazine  Section,  Sunday,  October  28, 
19 13.  Published  for  a  syndicate  of  American  newspapers  by  the 
Abbott  &  Briggs  Company,  New  York. 


Three  Kinds  of  Physical  Force    177 

ment  in  civilization — force — which  has  created  and 
now  upholds  society,  giving  efficacy  to  the  pronounce- 
ments of  law,  whether  by  the  legislature  or  in  the 
courts.  Organized  force,  alone,  enables  the  quiet 
and  the  weak  to  go  about  their  business  and  to  sleep 
securely,  safe  from  the  assaults  of  violence  without 
or  within. 

It  is  clear  that  Admiral  Mahan  would  not  con- 
tradict himself  so  flatly  as  in  these  two  passages, 
if  he  did  not  labour  under  a  fundamental  confu- 
sion, which  runs  through  all  his  writing  and 
through  that  of  practically  all  militarists,  as  to 
the  real  nature  of  physical  force. 

Three  kinds  of  physical  force  must  be  distin- 
guished in  order  to  reason  clearly  upon  the  subject 
and  to  avoid  the  self-contradiction  to  which  Ad- 
miral Mahan  falls  a  victim  when  he  thus  includes 
all  three  under  the  one  term  armament.  These 
three  kinds  of  physical  force  are: 

1.  Force  used  for  attack — aggression. 

2.  Force  used  to  neutralize  attack — defence. 

3.  Force  used  to  prevent  attack — police  force.* 

It  is  clearly  the  last  of  these — police  force — 
that  Admiral  Mahan  means  when  he  speaks  of 

'  A  convenient  classification  would  be  obtained  if  the  first  two 
kinds  of  force — aggression  and  defence — should  be  characterized 
as  violence,  while  the  third  form — police  force — acting  always 
under  the  direction  of  law,  and  in  the  service  of  society  as  a 
whole,  should  alone  be  characterized  as  force. 


178  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

armament  as  the  consecration  of  force  for  the 
maintenance  of  justice,  order,  and  peace.  But 
this  is  just  what  armament  is  not.  Its  activities 
are  confined  almost  entirely  to  defence  and  attack. 
We  do  not  speak  of  a  mining  town,  with  no  central 
authority  for  maintaining  order,  and  with  every 
inhabitant — gamblers,  thieves,  and  good  citizens 
alike,  armed  to  the  teeth  and  shooting  at  sight, 
as  having  a  very  high  degree  of  justice,  order,  and 
peace,  although  there  is  armament  enough  and  to 
spare.  This  is  the  present  condition  of  anarchy 
in  international  relations,  with  no  strong  central 
authority  to  enforce  order,  and  armament  con- 
fined to  the  functions  of  national  attack  and 
defence. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  the  whole  problem  of  the 
use  of  force  in  human  relations  centres  about  the 
first  kind  of  physical  force — aggression.  Aggres- 
sion is  the  form  in  which  physical  force  first  makes 
its  appearance  in  human  relations,  and  it  calls 
forth  in  turn  defensive  force  and  police  force. 
If  there  were  no  danger  of  aggression,  of  course 
there  would  be  no  necessity  for  defence.  Inci- 
dentally, it  is  worth  noting  that  from  this  point 
of  view,  all  effort  which  tends  to  remove  the 
motives  for  aggression  is  to  be  considered  as  a 
work  of  defence.  And  when  the  futility  of  using 
physical  force  for  aggression  becomes  apparent 
to  a  community  which  is  sufficiently  intelligent  to 
organize  a  co-operative  effort,  a  division  of  labour 
results  and  the  function  of  defence  is  delegated 


From  Violence  to  Police  Force    179 

to  a  police  force,  charged  with  the  duty  of  prevent- 
ing aggression  and  maintaining  order.  And  in 
proportion  as  the  motives  for  aggression  dis- 
appear, even  the  poHce  force  can  be  reduced  to  a 
minimum. 

The  process  may  be  clearly  followed  in  the 
history  of  the  western  mining  towns  of  America, 
where  at  first  every  man  has  to  depend  upon 
his  own  six-shooter  for  defence  against  the  ever- 
present  danger  of  attack.  When  a  strong  public 
opinion  arises,  which  makes  such  acts  of  aggression 
as  horse-stealing,  or  "shooting  up  the  town," 
immoral  acts,  the  citizens,  impelled  by  their 
common  need  for  defence,  co-operate  in  forming 
a  vigilance  committee,  or  a  Law  and  Order  League. 
Later,  it  is  found  advantageous  to  delegate  this 
defensive  function  to  a  sheriff,  and  the  work  of 
establishing  courts  of  justice,  and  a  regular  police 
force  rapidly  proceeds.  It  is  in  the  motives  for 
aggression,  then,  that  we  find  the  centre  of  gravity 
of  the  problem  of  force  in  human  relations.  In 
proportion  as  men  believe  that  military  force  can 
be  used  effectively  for  purposes  of  aggression,  to 
advance  their  national  welfare,  the  danger  of 
attack  will  be  always  present,  and,  what  is  more 
important,  they  will  be  unwilling  to  co-operate 
in  any  form  of  federation  or  international  police 
force,  because  this  would  imply  the  giving  up  of 
part  of  that  "sovereignty,"  which  means  the 
right  of  attacking  one's  neighbour  whenever  it 
may  seem  that  aggression  would  be  advantageous. 


i8o  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

In  fact,  it  is  easy  to  show  from  militaristic 
writings  that  the  belief  in  the  effectiveness  of 
aggressive  physical  force,  provided  only  that  this 
belief  is  held  by  a  sufficient  number  of  influential 
men  in  the  nation  concerned,  renders  inevitable 
the  employment  of  such  force;  in  other  words, 
that  this  belief  logically  makes  war  inevitable. 
For  if  force  can  be  used  aggressively  to  advance 
national  welfare,  armed  conflict  will  be  the  logical 
result  of  the  selfishness  of  nations,  and  therefore 
to  them,  a  law  of  nature.  Defence  will  therefore 
be  necessary  sooner  or  later.  Since,  according 
to  the  militarist  philosophy,  attack  is  the  best 
means  of  defence,  it  then  becomes  a  matter  of 
duty  for  the  ruler  of  the  nation  which  is  compelled 
to  defend  itself  to  choose  the  most  favourable 
moment  for  attack.  The  logical  chain  is  thus 
complete  from  a  belief  in  the  effectiveness  of 
aggressive  physical  force  to  the  inevitability  of 
war.  This  chain  of  reasoning  has  been  concisely 
stated,  in  its  practical  application,  by  a  German 
advocate  of  the  philosophy  of  force. 

No  one  will  thus  dispute  the  assumption  that, 
under  certain  circumstances,  it  is  the  moral  and 
political  duty  of  the  State  to  employ  war  as  a  political 
means.  So  long  as  all  human  progress  and  all  natural 
development  are  based  on  the  law  of  conflict,  it  is 
necessary  to  engage  in  such  conflict  under  the  most 
favourable  conditions  possible. 

When  a  State  is  confronted  by  the  material  impos- 
sibility of  supporting  any  longer  the  warlike  prepara- 


Wrong  Beliefs  Make  War  Inevitable  i8i 

tions  which  the  power  of  its  enemies  has  forced  upon 
it,  when  it  is  clear  that  the  rival  States  must  gradually 
acquire  from  natural  reasons  a  lead  that  cannot  be 
won  back,  when  there  are  indications  of  an  offensive 
alliance  of  stronger  enemies  who  only  wait  the  favour- 
able moment  to  strike — the  moral  duty  of  the  State 
towards  its  citizens  is  to  begin  the  struggle  while  the 
prospects  of  success  and  the  political  circumstances 
are  still  tolerably  favourable.  When,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  hostile  States  are  weakened  or  hampered 
by  affairs  at  home  and  abroad,  but  its  own  warlike 
strength  shows  elements  of  superiority,  it  is  impera- 
tive to  use  the  favourable  circumstances  to  promote 
its  own  political  aims.  The  danger  of  a  war  may  be 
faced  the  more  readily  if  there  is  good  prospect  that 
great  results  may  be  obtained  with  comparatively 
small  sacrifices.  ^ 

Substantially  the  same  ideas  are  held  by  the 
war  parties  in  each  of  the  Great  Powers  engaged 
in  the  war.  Thus  Lord  Roberts,  in  his  famous 
Manchester  speech,  reported  in  the  Manchester 
Guardian,  October  31,  1912,  has  advocated  that 
England  adopt  the  same  policy: 

Germany  strikes  when  Germany's  hour  has  struck; 
that  is  the  time-honoured  policy  of  her  Foreign  Office. 
That  was  the  policy  relentlessly  pursued  by  Bismarck 
and  Moltke  in  1866  and  1870.  It  has  been  her  policy 
to  the  present  hour.     And,  gentlemen,  it  is  an  excel- 

'  Bernhardi,  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  in  the  chapter  en- 
titled, "The  Duty  to  Make  War,"  pp.  52-53. 


1 82  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

lent  policy.     It  is,  or  should  be,  the  policy  of  every 
nation  prepared  to  play  a  great  part  in  history. 

In  America  President  Roosevelt  has  repeatedly 
emphasized  the  fact  that  the  belief  in  the  effect- 
iveness of  force  to  advance  a  nation's  moral  or 
material  interests  may  make  war  an  imperative  na- 
tional duty.  In  his  message  to  Congress  Decem- 
ber 4,  1906,  President  Roosevelt  said: 

It  must  ever  be  kept  in  mind  that  war  is  not  merely 
justifiable,  but  imperative  upon  honourable  men  and 
upon  an  honourable  nation  when  peace  is  only  to  be 
obtained  by  the  sacrifice  of  conscientious  conviction 
or  of  national  welfare.^ 

The  relation  between  the  belief  in  the  effective- 
ness of  military  force  used  for  aggression  and  the 
inevitability  of  war  has  been  clearly  stated  by  a 
distinguished  Belgian  author,  Dr.  Charles  Sarolea, 
whose  work  The  Anglo-German  Problem,  has  won 
the  highest  praise  from  the  King  of  the  Belgians 
and  others  in  close  touch  with  political  condi- 
tions in  Europe.  Dr.  Sarolea  summarizes  the 
relation  as  follows : 

Both  the  English  Imperialist  and  the  German 
Imperialist  believe  that  the  greatness  of  a  country 
does  not  depend  mainly  on  the  virtues  of  the  people, 
or  on  the  resoiirces  of  the  home  country,  but  largely 
on  the  capacity  of  the  home  country  to  acquire  and 
to  retain  large  tracts  of  territory  all  over  the  world. 
Both  the  English  Imperialist  and  the  German  Im- 

'  Quoted  by  Bernhardi,  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  p.  52. 


Four  Successive  Forms  of  Struggle  183 

perialist  have  learned  the  doctrine  of  Admiral  Mahan, 
that  the  greatness  and  prosperity  of  a  country  depends 
mainly  on  sea-power.  Both  believe  that  efficiency 
and  success  in  war  is  one  of  the  main  conditions  of 
national  prosperity. 

Now  as  long  as  the  two  nations  do  not  rise  to  a 
saner  political  ideal,  as  long  as  both  English  and  Ger- 
man people  are  agreed  in  accepting  the  current  politi- 
cal philosophy,  as  long  as  both  nations  shall  consider 
military  power  not  merely  as  a  necessary  and  tempo- 
rary evil  to  submit  to,  but  as  a  permanent  and  noble 
ideal  to  strive  after,  the  German  argument  remains 
unanswerable.  War  is  indeed  predestined,  and  no 
diplomatists  sitting  around  a  great  table  in  the 
Wilhelmstrasse  or  the  Ballplatz  or  the  Quai  d'Orsay 
will  be  able  to  ward  off  the  inevitable.  It  is  only, 
therefore,  in  so  far  as  both  nations  will  move  away 
from  the  old  political  philosophy,  that  an  understand- 
ing between  Germany  and  England  will  become  possi- 
ble. .  .  .  We  must  repeat  for  the  last  time  the 
Leitmotiv  of  this  book:  If,  as  the  result  of  some 
internal  difficulty  or  external  contingency,  those 
military  and  Imperialist  motives  be  allowed  to  gather 
strength,  then  indeed  the  political  pessimist  is  right — 
war  is  inevitable.  ...  It  is  the  ideas  and  ideals 
that  must  be  fundamentally  changed:  " Instauratio 
facienda  ah  imis  fundamentis."  And  those  ideals  once 
changed,  all  motives  for  a  war  between  England  and 
Germany  would  vanish  as  by  magic.  But  alas!  ideas 
or  ideals  do  not  change  by  magic  or  prestige — they 
can  only  change  by  the  slow  operation  of  intellectual 
conversion.     Arguments  alone  can  do  it.  ^ 

'Sarolea,  The  Anglo-German  Problem,  1912,  pp.  362-65. 


184  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

The  problem  of  aggression,  therefore,  consti- 
tutes the  key  to  the  whole  problem  of  the  place  of 
force  in  human  relations,  since  defence  and  even 
police  force  are  necessary  only  because  of  the 
danger  of  aggression.  From  this  consideration  it 
follows  that  the  crux  of  the  philosophy  of  force 
centres  about  the  question  of  the  effectiveness  or 
futility  of  the  instrument  of  force  for  accomplish- 
ing certain  objects  which  men  desire;  and  the 
hope  for  a  rationally  organized  world,  in  which 
war  will  not  be  "inevitable,"  depends  upon  the 
possibility  of  changing  the  widely  accepted  belief 
in  the  advantages  of  aggression.  To  understand 
the  decreasing  effectiveness  of  force,  which  has  now 
proceeded  so  far,  as  Norman  Angell  has  demon- 
strated in  The  Great  Illusion,  that  it  has  become 
futile  in  our  modern  interdependent  world,  it  is 
necessary  to  survey  briefly  the  different  forms  in 
which  struggle  is  successively  carried  on  between 
human  associations.^ 

The  most  imperative  need  of  man,  as  of  all  other 
animals,  is  food.  The  means  by  which  men  have 
sought  to  procure  nourishment  are:  searching  for 
and  gathering  food  from  nature,  hunting,  fishing, 
the  domestication  of  animals,  and  agriculture. 
When  all  other  meaiis  have  failed,  men  have  over- 

'  See  J.  Novikov,  Les  luttes  entre  societes  humaines  et  leurs  phases 
successives  (Paris,  Alcan,  2d  edition,  1904),  for  a  more  detailed 
account  of  the  successive  forms  of  struggle  than  is  given  here. 
Novikov  devotes  several  chapters  to  the  nature  and  processes  of 
each  of  the  successive  forms  of  struggle,  illustrating  his  analysis 
with  a  wealth  of  historical  material. 


The  Economic  Struggle  185 

come  their  hereditary  instinct,  and  have  killed 
their  own  kind  in  order  to  devour  them.  They 
have  thus  waged  purely  physiological  or  alimentary 
wars,  like  those  waged  by  animals  of  one  species 
against  those  of  another  species.  But  human  food 
is  the  most  difficult  to  procure,  since  it  is  necessary 
for  a  cannibal  to  attack  a  prey  as  strong  and 
intelligent  as  the  hunter.  In  accordance  with 
the  law  of  force,  that  it  tends  to  follow  the  line  of 
least  resistance,  the  cannibal  finds  it  better  to 
search  for  a  prey  which  possesses  inferior  mental 
faculties,  and  therefore  can  oppose  less  resistance. 
Cannibalism  has  been  abandoned  as  soon  as  it  has 
been  possible  to  procure  nourishment  in  any  other 
manner. 

As  we  have  seen  in  a  preceding  chapter,  the 
physiological  struggle  has  two  forms,  absorption 
and  elimination.  After  the  phase  of  cannibalism, 
which  is  a  process  of  absorption,  the  physiological 
struggle  has  gone  on  by  a  process  of  elimination. 
Men  made  war,  not  for  the  purpose  of  devouring 
each  other,  but  to  assure  themselves  of  subsistence 
— a  hunting  ground,  the  bank  of  a  river  rich  in 
fish,  trees  producing  nuts  and  fruits.  In  this 
case,  the  death  of  the  vanquished  ceases  to  be  an 
object,  and  becomes  a  means.  If  the  more  feeble 
abandons  the  prize  which  is  coveted,  he  can  pre- 
serve his  existence. 

Once  assured  of  being  able  to  secure  a  permanent 
supply  of  nourishment,  this  ceases  to  be  the 
principal  pre-occupation  of  man.     The  next  most 


1 86  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

urgent  need  which  becomes  an  object  of  his  atten- 
tion is  the  desire  for  well-being,  or  in  other  words, 
wealth.  The  most  rapid  way  to  procure  wealth, 
i.  e.,  all  those  objects  necessary  to  supply  the  needs 
of  man,  is  to  produce  the  desired  objects  himself; 
but  this  is  not  the  only  means.  He  can  either 
rob  some  other  individual  of  these  objects,  or 
force  some  other  individual  to  make  them  for  him. 
Since  the  victim  will  not  give  up  his  wealth  of 
his  own  free  will,  without  any  corresponding 
remuneration,  and  since  no  one  wishes  to  work 
without  any  reward,  the  aggressor  must  employ 
force,  and  economic  wars  break  out  between  men. 
These  assume  two  aspects  clearly  distinguished: 
at  first,  raiding  expeditions,  with  the  object  of 
seizing  such  wealth  as  is  movable;  later,  expedi- 
tions having  as  an  object  to  make  the  victor  the 
master  of  the  immovable  objects,  cleared  spaces 
in  the  forest,  rich  lands,  dwellings,  etc.  At  the 
same  time  that  the  goods  are  taken  possession  of, 
the  men  are  seized  also.  The  vanquished  be- 
comes a  beast  of  burden;  he  is  forced  to  work  for 
the  conqueror.  In  the  phase  in  which  the  pillaging 
expeditions  are  made,  the  vanquished,  seized  as 
booty,  was  transported  to  the  territory  of  the 
conqueror.  In  the  phase  of  the  conquering 
expeditions,  the  vanquished  remains  in  his  own 
country,  but  is  reduced  to  servitude. 

The  economic  wars  replace  the  alimentary 
wars,  then,  at  a  certain  stage  of  social  evolution. 
Naturally,  the  economic  wars  result  in  numerous 


The  Political  Struggle  187 

victims.  Nevertheless,  in  this  phase,  as  in  the 
second  phase  of  the  physiological  wars,  the  death 
of  the  vanquished  is  not  an  end,  but  a  means. 
Moreover,  when  the  feebler  becomes  the  slave  of 
the  stronger,  it  is  a  greater  advantage  to  the  con- 
queror to  have  the  slave  live,  since  he  benefits 
from  his  labour. 

At  a  more  advanced  stage  of  civilization,  men 
perceive  that  one  of  the  most  lucrative  functions 
is  that  of  government.  By  imposing  taxes,  the 
conqueror  can  obtain  the  wealth  of  the  producers 
in  a  much  more  complete  manner  and  much  more 
easily  than  by  seizing  his  property  directly.  When 
this  observation  is  made,  it  is  found  much  more 
advantageous  to  take  possession  of  the  govern- 
ment of  a  conquered  territory  than  to  seize  the 
movable  and  immovable  wealth  directly.  The 
earlier  methods  of  slavery,  pillage,  and  confisca- 
tion of  land  are  renounced,  and  the  conquerors 
are  content  to  avail  themselves  of  the  benefits  of 
the  government.  Thus  the  economic  wars  are 
transformed  into  political  wars,  and  become  what 
are  now  known  as  conquests. 

At  a  still  later  stage  of  social  development 
men  make  a  new  observation,  namely,  that  the 
way  other  people  think  has  a  very  great  influence 
upon  their  destiny.  A  certain  set  of  ideas,  certain 
religious  theories,  or  political  and  social  doctrines, 
appear  to  be  more  beneficial  than  others.  In 
order  to  enjoy  the  prosperity  which  these  psychic 
possessions  which  are  judged  to  be  useful  could 


i88   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

procure  for  them,  men  are  led  to  wish  to  inculcate 
these  ideas  into  their  fellow-men  by  persuasion, 
or,  if  this  means  does  not  succeed,  by  force.  From 
this  motive  arises  a  series  of  wars  in  which  the 
objective  is  purely  of  the  mental  order.  In  the 
wars  of  religion,  for  example,  the  object  was  not 
to  confiscate  territory  or  to  seize  wealth,  but 
simply  to  change  certain  ideas.  Thus  Philip  II. 
of  Spain  waged  the  devastating  wars  against 
Holland  because  he  wished  to  force  the  Dutch 
to  remain  Catholic.  The  Dutch  people  resisted 
because  they  did  not  wish  to  remain  Catholic. 
The  Spanish  were  not  seeking,  then,  to  seize  the 
wealth  of  Holland.  If  they  desired  to  take  pos- 
session of  the  Dutch  Government,  it  was  not  for 
the  sake  of  the  profit  which  it  would  have  given 
them,  but  in  order  to  have  the  power  to  stamp 
out  heresy. 

We  see,  then,  how  the  wars  between  human 
associations  change  their  object  insensibly  as 
they  pass  from  the  lowest  phase  of  the  war  for 
food,  to  the  highest  phase,  in  which  they  become 
exceedingly  complicated,  of  a  struggle  to  make 
other  men  adopt  our  mental  possessions.  The 
successive  phases  of  the  struggle  between  human 
associations  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  The  physiological  struggle ; 

2.  The  economic  struggle ; 

3.  The  political  struggle; 

4.  The  intellectual  struggle. 

The  order  in  which  the  different  forms  of  struggle 


The  Intellectual  Struggle         189 

have  appeared  is  also  the  order  in  which  they  are 
most  effective.  Since  the  intellectual  forces  are 
the  most  powerful,  the  struggle  for  existence  has 
resulted  in  the  survival  and  dominance  of  the 
most  intelligent.  The  economic  processes  pro- 
duce a  more  rapid  adaptation  of  the  physical 
environment  than  the  physiological  or  alimentary 
processes;  the  political  processes  result  in  a  more 
rapid  adaptation  than  the  economic  processes; 
and  finally  the  intellectual  processes  result  in  a 
more  rapid  adaptation  than  the  political  pro- 
cesses. The  effectiveness  of  an  instrument  is 
in  proportion  to  the  rapidity  with  which  it  enables 
us  to  accomplish  our  object,  i.  e.,  the  adaptation 
of  the  universe,  so  that  the  abandonment  of  the 
lower  for  the  higher  forms  of  struggle  is  equivalent 
to  the  abandonment  of  slower  for  more  rapid  and 
effective  processes. 

The  explanation  of  the  declining  economic, 
social,  and  moral  effectiveness  of  force  is  found  to  a 
large  extent  in  this  progress  of  civilization,  which 
has  changed  the  struggle  between  human  associa- 
tions from  its  lowest  phase,  the  physiological 
struggle,  to  its  highest,  the  intellectual  struggle. 
Physical  force  becomes  increasingly  ineffective 
as  we  rise  in  this  scale  until,  when  we  reach  the 
stage  of  intellectual  struggle,  we  find  that  physical 
force  is  an  absolutely  futile  instrument  with  which 
to  try  to  change  intellectual  convictions. 

The  causes  for  the  futility  of  force  are  to  be  found 
largely  in  two  factors:  (i)  the  resistance  of  the 


190  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

individual  who  is  attacked,  and  (2)  the  increasing 
complexity  and  interdependence  of  modern  society. 
The  effect  of  resistance  in  rendering  force  futile 
has  been  analysed  by  Norman  Angell  in  the 
following  summary: 

For  one  to  impose  his  will  upon  the  other  by  force 
implies  resistance;  thus  two  energies  are  cancelled  and 
end  in  sterility  or  waste.  For  even  when  one  triumphs, 
there  are  still  two  slaves :  the  vanquished  slave  to  the 
victor,  the  victor  to  the  need  of  maintaining  supremacy 
and  being  ready  to  use  force  against  the  vanquished. 
This  creates  a  form  of  relationship  as  wasteful  in 
economics  as  it  is  disastrous  in  morals.  It  explains 
the  failure  of  all  those  policies  based  on  coercion  or 
aggression — privilege  and  oppression  within  the 
State,  conquest  and  the  struggle  for  power  between 
States.  But  if  the  two  agree  to  combine  forces  in  the 
common  fight  against  Nature  for  life  and  sustenance, 
both  are  liberated  and  they  have  found  in  that 
partnership  the  true  economy:  still  better,  they 
have  found  in  it  the  true  basis  of  human  society  and 
its  spiritual  possibilities.  For  there  can  be  no  union 
without  some  measure  of  faith  in  the  agreement  on 
which  it  is  based,  some  notion  of  right.  It  indicates 
the  true  policy  whether  national  or  international — 
agreement  for  united  action  against  the  common 
enemy,  whether  found  in  Nature  or  in  the  passions 
and  fallacies  of  men.^ 

The  effects  of  the  increasing  complexity  and  in- 
terdependence of  society  in  rendering  force  futile 

'  War  and  Peace.  (Published  at  29  Charing  Cross,  London.) 
March,  1915. 


Interdependence  Makes  Force  Futile  191 

may  be  illustrated  by  a  mechanical  analogy.  For 
a  simple  mechanical  operation,  such  as  felling  a 
tree,  or  breaking  the  shell  of  a  cocoanut,  where 
a  direct  application  of  force  is  the  only  thing 
required,  the  stone  hatchet  of  primitive  man  was 
a  very  effective  instrument.  But  if  something 
goes  wrong  in  the  mechanism  of  a  watch,  the 
problem  of  adjusting  it  is  removed  to  the  plane  of 
other  forces,  on  account  of  the  complexity  of  the 
mechanism.  The  watch  may  require  machine  oil, 
or  a  screw-driver  operating  under  a  microscopic 
eyepiece,  or  an  electric  current  to  demagnetize 
it.  The  increasing  complexity  of  the  mechanism 
has  rendered  the  stone  hatchet  ineffective.  It 
may  be  used  to  smash  the  watch,  but  it  cannot 
adjust  what  is  wrong  and  make  it  go.  In  the  same 
way,  physical  force,  which  may  have  a  certain 
amount  of  effectiveness  in  a  simple,  elementary 
form  of  society,  loses  that  effectiveness  as  society 
grows  more  complex  and  interdependent.  As  the 
struggle  passes  from  the  physiological  phase  to 
the  economic,  political,  and  intellectual  phases, 
the  instrument  of  physical  force,  which  can  only 
be  used  for  purposes  of  destruction,  becomes 
irrelevant  to  the  objects  which  men  seek  to  attain. 
Economically,  the  irrelevance  arises  chiefly 
from  the  fact  of  interdependence,  and  from  the 
further  fact  that  physical  force  is  not  an  economic 
force.  It  can  destroy,  but  it  cannot  produce, 
and  as  a  result  of  the  growing  interdependence 
caused    by    association,   this    destruction    reacts 


192   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

upon  the  one  who  employs  the  violence.  If  two 
tribes  live  on  opposite  sides  of  a  river  or  swamp, 
with  no  contact  or  vital  circulation  between  them, 
it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  one  of  the  tribes 
if  the  other  is  destroyed  by  a  flood  or  an  earth- 
quake. But  suppose  the  river  is  bridged  or  the 
swamp  is  drained,  so  that  the  two  tribes  come  into 
contact,  and  a  vital  circulation  is  formed,  a 
division  of  labour  begins  to  take  place.  One 
tribe  has,  let  us  suppose,  a  better  soil  or  a  more 
favourable  climate,  and  devotes  itself  chiefly  to 
agriculture.  The  other  tribe  may  possess  mines 
of  coal  and  iron;  it  may  specialize  upon  manu- 
factures, exchanging  its  products  with  members 
of  the  first  tribe  for  food.  After  interdependence 
is  established  in  this  way,  as  the  result  of  the 
division  of  labour,  the  fate  of  each  tribe  is  no 
longer  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the  other.  If 
the  one  which  specializes  in  agriculture  is  wiped 
out  by  a  flood  or  an  earthquake,  the  members  of 
the  other  tribe  may  starve  to  death;  and  if  the 
manufacturing  society  is  exterminated,  the  agricul- 
tural society  will  suffer  for  want  of  clothing,  shelter, 
tools.  It  will  be  forced  to  return  to  the  condition 
which  preceded  the  establishment  of  the  division 
of  labour.  Its  civilization  will  be  degraded,  and 
many  of  the  members  of  the  tribe  will  die  off.  For 
either  of  the  tribes  to  exterminate  the  other  after 
interdependence  has  been  established,  would  be 
an  act  of  suicide.  For  one  tribe  to  attack  the 
other  with  the  object  of  advancing  its  own  econo- 


Economic  Futility  of  Force       193 

mic  welfare,  would  be  about  as  sensible  and  as 
relevant  to  the  object  desired  as  for  the  heart  to 
attack  the  lungs,  or  for  the  right  hand  to  cut  off 
the  left. 

Where  force  is  not  used  for  purposes  of  total 
destruction,  but  is  used  to  cause  only  a  partial 
death  or  mutilation  of  the  economic  rights  of 
others,  its  apparent  effectiveness  is  only  temporary, 
because  the  injustice  which  it  produces  results 
in  unrest,  maladjustment,  cumulative  opposition 
and  resentment,  a  combination  of  opposing  forces, 
and  final  overthrow.  In  other  words,  the  result 
of  the  attempt  to  use  physical  force  to  secure 
economic  advantage  produces  automatically 
enough  force  on  the  opposing  side  to  neutralize 
the  physical  force  of  aggression.  This  neutraliza- 
tion of  physical  force  results  either  in  an  unstable 
equilibrium  or  in  a  deadlock,  and  a  decision  can 
only  be  reached  by  removing  the  struggle  to  the 
higher  planes  of  economic,  political,  and  intellectual 
forces. 

In  studying  the  political  irrelevance  of  physical 
force  we  come  upon  one  of  the  doctrines  most 
confidently  affirmed  by  the  philosophy  of  force 
— that  the  State  has  been  formed  by  violence. 
This  doctrine  has  been  illustrated  by  quotations 
from  the  English  sociologist  Herbert  Spencer 
(p.  8),  the  German  sociologist  Ratzenhofer  (p. 
10),  and  the  American  sociologist  Ward  (p.  11). 
According  to  these  scientists,  the  State  has  been 
created  by  violence,  and  they  afi&rm  confidently 
13 


194   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

that  any  other  theory  of  the  formation  of  the 
State  is  in  fiat  contradiction  to  the  teachings  of 
sociology,  and  will  only  prepare  the  way  for 
disastrous  political  experiences. 

We  have  already  considered  this  fallacy  in  our 
study  of  the  general  sociological  errors  of  the 
philosophy  of  force,  in  which  we  have  seen  that 
war  is  always  a  process  of  dissociation,  never 
of  association.  In  order  to  understand  more 
clearly  the  error  which  is  involved,  it  is  worth 
while  to  consider  briefly  the  true  nature  of  the 
State. 

Even  the  philosophy  of  force  cannot  deny  that 
the  State  is  an  association.  What  is  meant  by 
an  association?  It  is  a  group  of  individuals,  be- 
tween whom  an  agreement,  either  tacit  or  formal, 
has  been  made  not  to  injure  each  other.  What  is 
meant  by  injury?  It  means  not  to  kill  or  rob  each 
other,  or,  in  other  words,  not  to  wage  war. 

The  State,  according  to  the  philosophy  of  force, 
is  formed  by  conquest.  But  in  order  that  a  con- 
quest may  be  made,  necessarily  two  associations 
must  previously  exist,  the  one  which  attacks 
(which  Professor  Ward  calls  the  spermatozoid), 
and  the  one  which  defends  itself  (which  he  com- 
pares to  the  ovule).  Since  these  two  primitive 
associations  are  formed  by  alliance  {i.  e.,  the 
absence  of  war  between  the  individuals  which 
compose  them),  it  is  therefore  the  union  of  men 
which  has  formed  the  first  State,  and  not  war 
between  human  associations.     Certain  States  in 


Political  Futility  of  Force         195 

modem  times,  like  Turkey,  are  of  course  the  result 
of  conquest  and  banditism ;  but  nevertheless,  it  is 
a  profound  error  to  believe,  as  Hobbes  has  argued, 
that  the  essence  of  the  nature  of  the  State  consists 
in  its  being  an  enterprise  for  conquest  and  exploita- 
tion. 

Although  Spencer  and  other  sociologists  recog- 
nize that  the  foundation  of  the  State  is  co-opera- 
tion and  not  violence,  they  maintain,  as  we  have 
seen  in  Chapter  L,  that  without  wars,  banditism, 
and  conquest  the  State  would  never  have  been 
produced.  This  arises  also  from  a  misconception 
of  the  true  nature  of  the  State.  Without  bandit- 
ism, the  State  would  have  been  created  by  social 
organization,  by  the  voluntary  action  of  the 
citizens.  This  is  the  process  which  we  see  going 
on  under  our  eyes;  and  it  is  only  the  anthropo- 
logical romances,  and  the  failure  to  study  the  slow 
and  invisible  causes  of  the  evolution  of  society 
which  prevent  us  from  realizing  that  the  processes 
we  observe  in  the  daily  life  about  us  have  always 
been  the  forces  of  social  progress.  We  can  observe 
the  process  of  the  amalgamation  of  societies 
proceeding  through  millions  of  relations,  all 
consisting  of  variations  of  the  elementary  facts  of 
the  transportation  of  people,  of  products,  and  of 
ideas.  It  is  known  that  commercial  relations 
have  been  established  since  the  highest  antiquity, 
between  the  most  diverse  regions;  e,  g.,  metal 
instruments  originating  in  Asia  have  been  found 
in  the  prehistoric  remains  in  Europe,  and  it  is 


196   Declining  Effectiveness  of  F'orce 

known  that  the  Phoenicians  carried  on  commerce 
long  before  the  beginning  of  written  history. 
Moreover,  the  witness  of  contemporary  events 
shows  us  that  the  State  is  never  founded  upon 
force.  States  are  being  organized  under  our 
eyes,  by  a  process  in  which  force  does  not  play 
the  slightest  role.  During  the  nineteenth  century, 
the  American  colonists  and  pioneers  emigrated 
to  the  western  part  of  the  continent,  and  founded 
numerous  States.  After  taking  up  and  clearing 
the  land  they  cultivated  it  and  began  to  exchange 
products.  As  a  result  of  this  activity,  thousands 
of  needs  for  organization  were  born,  which  led 
the  colonists  to  establish  numerous  institutions 
of  political  machinery.  War  did  not  play  the 
slightest  role  at  any  time  in  all  this  process  of 
organizing  the  Territories  and  States  of  the  far 
West.  But  the  facts  which  we  observe  in  our 
own  time  are  of  the  same  kind  as  have  occurred 
at  all  epochs. 

The  human  race  did  not  appear  in  each  region 
of  the  earth  as  the  result  of  a  miraculous  creation. 
The  testimony  of  science  is  that  man  has  radiated 
from  a  single  centre  of  dispersion.  There  was  then 
a  long  period  in  which  the  earth,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  relatively  small  region,  was  uninhabited 
by  our  species,  and  the  outlying  parts  have  been 
successively  colonized  by  our  ancestors.  The 
process  which  took  place  in  the  western  part  of 
America  during  the  nineteenth  century,  took 
place  everywhere  on  the  earth  at  a  more  ancient 


States  Are  Voluntary  Associations  197 

epoch.  Men  have  come  into  a  certain  region, 
and  have  commenced  to  adapt  the  soil  to  their 
needs;  in  other  words,  to  produce  wealth.  As  a 
result  they  have  been  forced  to  establish  immedi- 
ately some  kind  of  organization,  because  without 
organization,  community  life  would  have  been 
impossible.  War  has  not  played  any  more  of  a 
role  in  this  ancient  process  of  organization  than 
in  the  modern  process. 

The  State  is  the  region  within  a  certain  peri- 
meter, within  which  association  dominates  over 
dissociation,  or  in  other  words,  where  juridical 
relations,  established  between  the  citizens,  exclude 
anarchistic  relations.  The  frontiers  of  a  State 
are  marked  exactly  by  the  line  at  which  war 
ceases.  Within  this  line,  citizens  are  not  author- 
ized to  combat  each  other  by  means  of  homicide 
and  robbery.  Beyond  this  line,  the  people  are 
authorized  to  combat  with  these  means.  It  is  as 
a  result  of  this  characteristic  that  the  States  are 
"sovereign."  According  to  our  present  ideas,  a 
State  is  not  sovereign,  and  is  therefore  not  a  State 
in  the  complete  meaning  of  the  term,  if  its  foreign 
policy  is  not  completely  independent,  if  it  has  not 
absolute  liberty  to  wage  war  upon  its  neighbours 
whenever  it  seems  desirable  to  do  so.  The  funda- 
mental difference  between  the  relations  of  the  citi- 
zens within  the  State  and  the  relations  of  the  States 
within  humanity,  consists  in  this:  the  first  are  ju- 
ridical; the  second  anarchistic.  Between  citizens, 
war  is  an  accident :  the  normal  condition  is  the  com- 


198   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

plete  absence  of  tension .  Between  sovereign  States^ 
juridical  relations  are  a  happy  accident :  there  is 
perpetual  tension,  and  latent,  if  not  actual  war. 

The  philosophy  of  force  affirms  that  the  State 
could  not  have  been  created  without  the  employ- 
ment of  force,  and  that  any  one  who  denies  this 
doctrine  is  convicted  of  absolute  ignorance  of 
sociology.  But  force  signifies  war,  and  war 
signifies  anarchistic  relations.  To  say  that  the 
State  could  only  have  been  produced  by  war,  is 
to  say  that  the  State  could  only  have  been  pro- 
duced by  anarchistic  relations.  In  the  last 
analysis,  then,  this  amounts  to  saying  that 
juridical  relations  can  only  be  created  by  anar- 
chistic relations,  or  in  other  words,  that  a  thing 
can  only  be  created  by  its  contrary.  It  is  difficult 
to  imagine  a  more  complete  contradiction. 

Why  does  Germany  constitute  a  State  at  the 
present  time?  Because  Prussia,  Saxony,  Bavaria, 
Wurttemberg,  have  ceased  to  be  sovereign  States, 
i.  e.,  free  to  declare  war  upon  each  other  at 
any  time  they  choose.  If  Bavaria  should  invade 
Wurttemberg,  a  federal  decision  made  by  all  of 
Germany  would  oblige  the  Bavarians  to  retiirn  to 
their  own  territory.  The  relations  between  the 
German  States  are  now  of  a  juridical  order.  But 
if  tomorrow  Prussia,  Saxony,  Hesse,  and  Bavaria 
were  to  become  again  sovereign  States,  i.  e.,  to  pass 
from  juridical  relations  to  a  state  of  war,  either 
active  or  potential,  immediately  the  State  of 
Germany  would  cease  to  exist. 


Violence  Prevents  State  Formation    199 

We  may  follow  the  process  even  further.  Sup- 
pose that  the  administrative  districts  of  Bavaria, 
such  as  Franconia,  Suabia,  and  the  Palatinate, 
should  proclaim  themselves  sovereign,  and  com- 
mence to  wage  war.  There  would  no  longer  be  a 
Bavarian  State.  Or  suppose  that  in  Franconia 
the  cities  of  Bayreuth,  Bamberg,  and  Hof  divided 
up  into  sovereign  imities;  the  Franconian  State 
would  cease  to  exist.  In  the  same  way,  we  may 
follow  the  process  down  to  the  ancient  six  hundred 
German  sovereignties,  principalities,  free  cities, 
etc.,  or  even  down  to  the  Bezirks  and  villages. 
If  war  is  established  between  the  small  units, 
the  State  formed  by  the  superior  unit  is  destroyed. 
Finally,  going  to  the  lowest  limit,  if  even  in  a 
village  each  house  became  a  unit  free  to  declare 
war,  the  existence  of  the  State  would  be  suppressed 
completely  and  absolutely,  since  it  is  impossible 
to  give  the  name  of  State  to  the  inhabitants  of  a 
single  house. 

Suppose  now  that  we  follow  the  process  in  the 
inverse  direction.  What  was  it  that  prevented 
for  so  long  a  time,  the  creation  of  the  State  called 
Greece?  It  was  because  Sparta,  Corinth,  Thebes, 
and  Athens  were  not  willing  to  renoimce  the 
right  to  wage  war  on  each  other.  At  the  present 
time,  these  cities  would  consider  it  insane  to 
wage  war  on  each  other;  they  desire  to  remain 
in  juridical  relations,  and  not  in  anarchistic  re- 
lations. As  a  consequence,  the  State  of  Greece 
does  exist.     It  is  war,  then,  which  prevented  the 


200  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

formation  of  the  Hellenic  State  during  so  many- 
centuries. 

The  philosophy  of  force,  seeing  that  certain 
modem  nations  have  been  formed  as  a  result  of 
coercive  wars,  has  concluded  in  a  superficial  fashion 
that  war  has  formed  all  states.  But  how  is  it 
possible  to  fail  to  see  that  in  order  to  force  two 
social  unities  to  amalgamate  into  a  single  one,  it  is 
necessary  that  at  least  one  of  these  imities  should 
desire  to  maintain  a  state  of  war,  or  in  other  terms, 
anarchistic  relations?  If  the  two  units  consent  to 
form  an  alliance  (to  establish  juridical  relations), 
the  employment  of  force  would  become  completely 
superfluous.  If,  in  1861,  the  North  was  obliged  to 
employ  force,  this  was  solely  because  the  South, 
in  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  showed  that  it  was 
determined  to  employ  force  against  the  North. 
When  the  force  of  attack  was  neutralized  by  the 
force  of  defence,  the  way  was  reopened  for  the 
real  binding  forces  of  common  interests,  economic, 
social  and  moral,  to  re-establish  the  Union.  In 
the  same  way,  it  was  the  common  interests  of 
the  German  people,  economic,  social  and  moral, 
expressed  in  their  passionate  longing  to  be  united 
through  long  generations,  and  illustrated  by  the 
national  uprising  of  1813  and  the  Frankfort 
Parliament  of  1848,  which  finally  made  it  possible 
to  break  down  the  resistance  of  the  six  hundred 
kings,  princes,  electors,  etc.,  who  did  not  wish  to 
give  up  their  sovereignty,  i.  e.,  the  right  to  declare 
war   on   each   other  whenever   they   so  desired. 


War  Prevents  Federation  of  Europe   201 

War  has  not  been  the  cause  of  the  formation  of  the 
German  State ;  war  was  the  cause  which  prevented 
the  German  State  from  being  formed  for  so  many- 
centuries.  ^ 

The  same  causes  which  have  operated  in  the 
past  operate  at  present.  What  is  the  obstacle 
to  the  creation  of  a  United  States  of  Europe? 
The  fact  that  Germany,  France,  Russia,  and 
England  are  not  willing  to  renounce  the  right 
to  make  war  upon  each  other.  It  is  war  which 
prevents  at  the  present  time  the  formation  of  a 
Pan-European  State,  just  as  it  prevented  for  so 
long  the  formation  of  a  Pan-Hellenic  State. 
We  can  see,  then,  how  far  wrong  Spencer  and  the 
other  sociologists  of  the  philosophy  of  force  are,  in 
affirming  that  war  has  made  the  great  societies. 
The  truth  is  just  the  contrary.  War  has  prevented 
them  from  being  made. 

According  to  Professor  Ward,  conquest  is  a 
fertilization  which  results  in  an  increase  of  life, 
since  it  causes  human  societies  to  pass  from  an 
unorganized  phase  to  the  organized  phase.  Pre- 
cisely the  opposite  is  the  truth.  All  conquest  is  a 
diminution  of  life,  a  time  of  arrested  development, 
an  obstacle  preventing  the  passage  from  an  im- 
perfect organization  to  a  more  perfect  organiza- 
tion. Here  again,  we  find  physical  force  ineffective 
to  achieve  the  desired  political  result. 

When    a    conqueror    occupies    a    country,    his 

'  See  supra,  pp.  104-7,  ^o^  a  consideration  of  war  as  a  dis- 
sociation. 


202  Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

conduct  may  vary  between  the  limits  of  a  complete 
extermination  of  the  vanquished  and  an  absolute 
respect  for  their  rights.  Evidently,  if  the  van- 
quished are  massacred  to  the  last  man,  Professor 
Ward  would  not  affirm  that  an  intensification  of 
life  had  taken  place.  Those  who  are  killed  most 
certainly  do  not  experience  any  intensification  of 
their  life,  and  for  the  conquerors,  none  the  less,  the 
massacre  of  the  vanquished  is  not  an  intensifica- 
tion of  life,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  lose 
those  individuals  who  might  have  been  their 
associates,  and  vital  intensity  is  in  direct  propor- 
tion to  the  number  of  the  associates.  Conquest 
cannot  therefore  intensify  life,  if  there  is  a  total  or 
partial  extermination  of  the  vanquished.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  seems  difficult  to  deny  that  the 
sum  of  vital  power  of  the  new  organism  which 
issues  from  the  conquest  will  be  exactly  in  inverse 
proportion  to  the  injustice  exercised  by  the  con- 
queror. In  other  words,  the  conquest  will  be  the 
more  beneficial  the  less  the  rights  of  the  con- 
quered are  violated,  which  amounts  to  saying  that 
life  would  have  been  most  exuberant  if  there  had 
been  no  conquest  at  all. 

If  after  the  conquest,  oppression  and  despotism 
are  quickly  effaced,  civilization  and  social  vigour 
reappear.  If,  however,  after  the  conquest,  the 
vanquished  is  subjected  to  a  regime  less  just  than 
that  which  he  enjoyed  at  the  time  of  his  indepen- 
dence, barbarism  is  an  inevitable  consequence. 
Hundreds  of  examples  of  this  case  might  be  cited. 


Conquest  a  Limitation  of  Life     203 

The  regime  established  by  the  Turks  in  the 
European  provinces  of  their  Empire  was  frightful. 
Greece  became  a  desert  under  the  Turkish  rule. 
At  the  epoch  of  its  splendour,  Attica  alone  had 
400,000  inhabitants,  while  all  Greece  in  1830 
did  not  have  600,000.  The  city  of  Athens,  from 
being  the  abode  of  an  Aristotle  and  a  Praxiteles, 
had  fallen  to  the  rank  of  a  miserable  village  which 
did  not  have  a  single  school  or  a  single  stone- 
cutter. How  would  Professor  Ward  fit  into  his 
universal  law  this  admirable  example  of  social 
fertilization  and  of  vital  exuberance? 

The  example  is  often  cited  of  how  a  civilized 
society  takes  possession,  by  fire  and  sword,  of  a 
country  previously  occupied  by  savages.  If, 
following  this  conquest,  the  country  becomes 
civilized,  it  is  said  that  it  is  force  which  has  pro- 
duced this  beneficent  result.  This  is  only  an 
illusion  which  arises  from  a  superficial  observation 
of  the  facts.  It  is  not  simply  as  a  result  of  con- 
quest that  certain  populations  can  pass  from  a 
wandering  and  anarchistic  life  to  a  sedentary  and 
juridical  life;  it  is  organization  alone  which  can 
produce  this  result.  The  Philippines  have  not 
been  civilized  by  force ;  the  civilization  is  the  result 
of  education,  the  introduction  of  modem  methods 
of  hygiene  and  agriculture.  It  is  because  a  col- 
lection of  individuals  previously  disorganized  be- 
come organized  that  they  make  progress,  and  not 
in  any  degree  as  a  result  of  collective  homicide.  In 
so  far  as  force  has  played  any  r61e  in  the  progress 


204   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

of  the  Philippines,  it  has  only  been  as  a  police 
force,  which  neutralized  the  military  force  of 
aggression  of  the  various  warring  tribes,  and  thus 
left  the  field  free  for  the  real  forces — economic, 
political,  and  intellectual — of  social  progress.  Nor 
is  it  true  to  say  that  organization  cannot  be  ac- 
complished without  collective  homicide.  There 
are  many  other  means  of  bringing  about  the  pro- 
cess of  education  and  organization,  as  illustrated 
in  the  work  of  the  Jesuits  in  South  America,  and  of 
the  missionaries  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  On 
the  other  hand,  homicide  may  be  practised  during 
many  years  without  leading  to  any  organization. 

In  general,  there  are  two  kinds  of  political  union 
which  result  from  conquest,  the  one  real,  and  the 
other  artificial.  Real  union  can  only  be  obtained 
by  justice  and  the  action  of  social  forces.  Physical 
force  produces  only  artificial  unions,  which  tend 
to  break  up  at  every  instant.  They  result  in 
an  enfeeblement  of  life,  both  for  the  conquerors 
and  for  the  conquered,  as  long  as  they  last.  Ex- 
amples of  these  artificial  unions  are  the  union 
of  Germany  and  Alsace-Lorraine,  of  Russia  and 
Poland,  of  Austria  and  the  Trentino,  of  Hungary 
and  Transylvania.  Far  from  being  force  which 
creates  the  State,  it  may  be  said  that  the  strength 
of  a  State  is  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  amount 
of  force  which  was  used  at  its  foundation. 

One  of  the  occasions  on  which  force  is  supposed 
to  have  been  politically  effective  was  in  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  United  States.     But 


Did  War  Abolish  Slavery  ?       205 

this  theory  fails  to  account  for  the  fact  that  slavery- 
has  also  been  abolished  in  all  other  parts  of  the 
world,  e.  g.,  in  the  colonies  of  the  British  Empire, 
without  war.  If  we  ask  why  slavery  has  been 
abolished  in  all  other  parts  of  the  world,  we  find 
that  it  was  the  result  of  the  conviction  that 
slavery  was  economically  and  morally  wrong.  It 
was  the  same  force  which  was  effective  in  the 
United  States.  In  the  North  this  conviction  was 
reached  early.  Even  at  the  beginning  of  the  war, 
a  strong  party  in  the  South  held  the  conviction 
that  slavery  was  economically  and  morally  wrong. 
The  discussion  went  on  during  all  the  four 
years  of  the  Civil  War,  and  General  Lee  is  re- 
ported to  have  said,  just  before  his  surrender, 
that  at  least  it  was  fortunate  that  the  South 
had  become  convinced  that  slavery  should  be 
abolished. 

Another  proof  that  it  was  intellectual  conviction 
and  not  physical  force  that  abolished  slavery  is 
found  by  comparing  the  results  obtained  in  the 
emancipation  and  the  enfranchisement  of  the 
negro.  Both  were  supposed  to  have  been  accom- 
plished by  physical  force.  In  so  far  as  force 
could  accomplish  the  result  it  was  done,  and  both 
freedom  and  suffrage  were  guaranteed  to  the 
negro  by  an  amendment  to  the  United  States 
Constitution.  The  negro  retained  his  freedom, 
but  he  did  not  retain  his  right  of  suffrage.  Why? 
Because  the  South  was  convinced  that  slavery  was 
economically  and  morally  wrong,  but  it  was  not 


2o6   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

convinced  that  the  vote  should  be  given  to  unedu- 
cated negroes.  In  the  political  domain,  as  well  as 
in  the  economic  realm,  physical  force  is  irrelevant 
and  ineffective;  the  victory  is  obtained  only 
through  struggle  in  the  higher  plane,  and  by 
intellectual  forces. 

The  political  futility  of  force  is  recognized  in 
all  enlightened  communities  where  the  party  in 
power,  although  actually  in  command  of  the  mili- 
tary forces  of  the  country,  refrains  from  using  this 
physical  force  to  try  to  keep  itself  in  power  when 
defeated  at  the  polls.  In  socially  unenlightened 
communities,  such  as  Venezuela  or  Mexico,  in  so 
far  as  the  belief  in  the  political  effectiveness  of 
physical  force  obtained,  its  real  futility  was  de- 
monstrated by  the  unceasing  revolutions,  and  the 
degradation  of  civilization,  which  carried  down 
with  it  those  who  attempted  to  advance  their 
welfare  or  obtain  political  objects  by  an  irrelevant 
instrument.  Society  and  political  progress  are  only 
possible  when  the  irrelevance  of  physical  force  to 
obtain  political  objects  is  realized  by  the  members 
of  a  community. 

The  most  striking  illustration  of  the  reaHzation 
of  the  irrelevance  of  physical  force  in  intellectual 
struggles  is  found  in  the  cessation  of  the  wars  of 
religion.  Lecky  has  traced  with  a  master's  hand 
the  process  by  which  religious  persecutions  de- 
clined and  the  wars  of  religion  disappeared  as  the 
result  of  the  intellectual  discussions  and  the  rising 
spirit    of    rationalism    which    undermined    and 


Intellectual  Futility  of  Force      207 

disintegrated  their  motives.'  The  disappearance 
of  the  religious  wars  was  not  so  remarkable,  how- 
ever, as  the  disappearance  of  the  motives  for 
these  wars,  the  fact  that  men  lost  all  desire  to 
impose  their  intellectual  convictions  by  physical 
force  upon  others.  The  story  of  this  change  in 
ideas  is  one  of  surpassing  interest  in  the  history  of 
human  evolution.  From  the  time  when  the  first 
heretics  questioned  the  dogmas  almost  universally 
held  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  through  the 
discussions  and  the  debates  of  Castellio,  Socinus, 
Zwingli,  and  the  other  leaders  who  compelled 
Calvin  and  the  Geneva  theologians  to  defend 
their  position  by  arguments  instead  of  by  cannons 
and  thus  removed  the  struggle  to  the  realm  of 
intellect,  to  the  victory  of  rationalism  over  per- 
secution and  force  as  a  means  of  establishing 
truth,  the  story  of  the  rise  of  tolerance  consti- 
tutes one  of  the  most  dramatic  illustrations  in  his- 
tory of  the  futility  of  physical  force  in  the  realm 
of  intellectual  struggle,  and  of  the  abandonment 

'  See  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  History  of  the  Rise  and  Influence  of  the  Spir- 
it of  Rationalism  in  Europe,  New  York,  1 871,  especially  chapter  v.: 

"The  Peace  of  Westphalia  is  justly  regarded  as  closing  the  era 
of  religious  wars.  .  .  .  Among  all  the  possible  dangers  which 
cloud  the  horizon,  none  appears  more  improbable  than  a  coalition 
formed  upon  the  principle  of  a  common  belief,  and  designed  to 
extend  the  sphere  of  its  influence.  .  .  .  Wars  that  were  once 
regarded  as  simple  duties  became  absolutely  impossible.  .  .  . 
That  which  had  long  been  the  centre  around  which  all  other 
interests  revolved,  receded  and  disappeared,  and  a  profound 
change  in  the  actions  of  mankind  indicated  a  profound  change 
in  their  belief." — Vol.  ii.,  pp.  iio-ii. 


2o8   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

of  the  use  of  this  force  as  soon  as  its  futility  was 
recognized. 

It  is  the  cataclysmic  theory  of  history  which 
prevents  us  from  realizing  the  superior  effective- 
ness of  intellectual  forces  over  physical  forces, 
since  intellectual  processes  must  be  classed  among 
the  real  and  invisible  causes  of  progress.  If  after 
the  Great  War  the  democratic  forces  in  Ger- 
many gain  a  victory  over  the  Junkers  and  get 
possession  of  the  German  Government,  the  su- 
perficial methods  of  the  cataclysmic  theory  will 
doubtless  lead  to  a  widespread  belief  that  this 
political  revolution  and  the  resulting  progress 
were  caused  by  the  war  and  constitute  a  justifica- 
tion for  much  of  its  suffering  and  destruction. 
The  steady  growth  of  the  German  Social  Demo- 
cracy during  the  past  generation;  the  fact  that  it 
has  gained  one  per  cent,  of  the  total  German  vote 
on  the  average  every  year  for  the  past  twenty 
years;  that  in  1912  the  Social  Democrats  had 
secured  34%  of  the  total  Germany  vote,  and  that 
the  continuance  of  this  irresistible  progress  must 
inevitably  have  given  them  the  control  of  the 
Government  within  a  few  years,  will  probably  be 
entirely  lost  sight  of.  Yet  the  victory  of  demo- 
cracy will  nevertheless  be  due  primarily  to  these 
intellectual  forces,  and  to  the  work  of  education, 
propaganda,  organization,  and  agitation  which  the 
Social  Democrats  have  carried  on,  year  after  year, 
and  which  the  cruder  methods  of  the  Junkers, 
with  their  reliance  upon  the  political  power  and 


Intellectual  Forces  Most  Effective  209 

the  military  force  which  they  control,  had  been 
utterly  unable  to  resist. 

In  the  same  way  if  the  disintegration  of  the 
Hapsburg  Empire  should  follow  the  war  the 
cataclysmic  theory  will  hold  this  to  be  the  result  of 
the  war,  while  the  real  causes :  the  steady  growth 
of  the  consciousness  of  nationality,  the  spread  of 
education,  the  influence  of  a  cheap  popular  press, 
the  renaissance  in  the  Slavic  literature  among  the 
racial  elements  of  Austria,  the  fact  that  for  many 
years  organization  has  been  going  on  which  upon 
an  agreed  signal — the  death  of  the  Emperor,  Franz 
Joseph — had  planned  a  simultaneous  uprising 
against  the  military  force  by  which  the  hetero- 
geneous elements  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  Em- 
pire alone  were  held  together, — all  these  slow  and 
invisible  causes,  in  which  the  true  explanation  of 
the  inevitable  decentralization  of  the  Hapsburg 
military  empire  must  be  found,  will  be  almost 
certainly  disregarded  in  favour  of  the  simple  and 
superficial  explanation  of  the  cataclysmic  theory. 
It  is  significant  that  in  recent  years  the  Junkers  of 
Germany  and  the  military  ruling  class  of  Austria- 
Hungary  had  begun  to  recognize  the  relative 
futility  of  physical  force  and  had  been  compelled 
themselves  to  take  up  the  more  effective,  intellec- 
tual weapons,  organizing  counter-propaganda  and 
educational  campaigns,  removing  some  of  the  more 
flagrant  injustices  which  served  their  opponents 
as  effective  arguments,  and  making  many  conces- 
sions  to   the   spirit   of   liberty   and   nationality, 

14 


210   Declining  Effectiveness  of  Force 

concessions  in  flat  contradiction  with  the  poHcy 
dictated  by  their  own  philosophy  of  the  effective- 
ness of  force. 

The  decHning  effectiveness  of  force  is  not  only  a 
consequence  of  the  progress  of  civilization.  It  is 
also  a  cause.  As  the  role  of  physical  force  becomes 
less  important,  due  to  the  reaHzation  of  its  ineffec- 
tiveness, more  of  the  energies  of  men  are  set  free 
for  the  higher  forms  of  struggle,  economic,  political, 
and  intellectual.  This  increased  activity  in  the 
higher  forms  of  struggle  again  makes  physical  forces 
less  effective,  so  that  we  have  a  cumulative  result 
with  the  law  of  acceleration  entering  into  play. 
The  material  advance  in  civiHzation  also,  due  to 
increasing  co-operation  and  the  division  of  labour, 
places  new  and  increasingly  powerful  instruments 
at  the  disposal  of  intellectual  forces — instruments 
of  education,  the  popular  press,  postal  and  tele- 
graphic systems,  rapid  means  of  transportation; 
and  these  new  and  powerful  instruments  greatly 
increase  the  effectiveness  and  rapidity  of  opera- 
tion of  the  intellectual  forces.  Social  evolution  is 
essentially  a  progressive  modification  of  conflict 
by  association  and  interdependence,  and  in  the 
course  of  this  modification  conflict  itself  is  trans- 
formed from  a  physical  into  an  intellectual 
struggle. 

The  result  of  this  process  of  the  declining  ef- 
fectiveness of  force  is  that  in  our  modern  inter- 
dependent civilization  physical  force  used  for 
aggression   has  become    futile   to   advance   those 


The  Modern  Futility  of  Force     211 

ends,  economic,  social,  and  moral,  for  which  men 
live  and  strive. 

Why,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  does  force  still 
play  so  large  a  r61e  in  human  relations? 

The  reason  is  because  unfortunately  it  is  not 
facts  which  determine  the  actions  of  men,  but 
their  belief  in  regard  to  these  facts.  It  is  not 
enough  that  physical  force,  used  for  aggression, 
should  be  futile;  it  is  necessary  that  men  should 
realize  its  futility. 

The  question  whether  the  system  of  international 
anarchy  can  be  replaced  by  a  system  of  inter- 
national justice  and  law  depends  upon  the  ques- 
tion whether  an  intellectual  revolution  can  be 
accomplished,  replacing  error  by  truth  in  the 
minds  of  men. 

Have  we  any  basis  to  hope  for  such  an  intellec- 
tual revolution?  What  are  the  forces  making  for 
such  a  revolution,  and  what  are  the  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  its  accomplishment?  These  are  the 
questions  we  shall  study  in  the  next  chapter,  and 
upon  the  answer  which  history  shall  give  to  this 
fundamental  question,  depends  the  hope  of  the 
redemption  of  human  society. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  INTELLECTUAL  REVOLUTION 

ONE  of  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  force  is  its  crudely  fatalistic  theory 
of  society  and  political  institutions.  Running  all 
through  the  literature  of  its  philosophy  is  the 
assumption  that  it  is  no  use  trying  to  correct 
false  ideas  in  the  minds  of  men,  because  their 
"fighting  instincts"  render  war  "inevitable"; 
because  "history  repeats  itself";  or,  because  "you 
cannot  change  human  nature."  It  is  everywhere 
taken  for  granted  that  man's  conduct  is  not 
influenced  by  his  ideas,  since  he  is  not  guided  by 
reason  or  "logic."  We  find  the  belief  almost 
universal  in  this  philosophy  that  war  is  not,  like 
law  or  constitutional  government  or  any  other 
human  institution,  the  result  of  human  effort  and 
opinion,  good  and  bad,  but  is  imposed  by  outside 
forces  which  men  cannot  control. 

This  social  fatalism  throws  an  interesting  light 
upon  the  general  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  most 
elementary  fact  of  social  science — that  ideas  are 
the  source  of  institutions.  Obsessed  by  the  idea 
of  struggle,  the  advocates  of  the  philosophy  of 

212 


Social  Fatalism  213 

force  ignore  entirely  the  most  wide-spread  and 
effective  form  of  this  struggle — the  intellectual 
struggle — to  which  must  be  traced  ultimately  all 
social  progress.  And  the  most  effective  reply  to 
this  social  fatalism  is  found  in  the  activities  of  those 
who  profess  this  belief,  but  who  nevertheless 
devote  much  of  their  energies  to  the  intellectual 
struggle,  to  propagating  their  ideas,  and  advocat- 
ing their  philosophy  of  social  fatalism. 

What  is  implied  in  the  argument  that  war  can- 
not be  abolished  because  "you  cannot  change 
human  nature  "  ? 

When  analysed,  it  means  that  man  is  at  bottom 
a  selfish  animal,  that  as  long  as  he  can  use  force 
effectively  to  advance  his  welfare,  he  may  be  relied 
upon  to  do  so,  that  nations,  since  they  are  made  up 
of  men  having  this  fundamentally  selfish  char- 
acteristic, may  be  relied  upon  to  act  in  the  same 
selfish  manner,  and  that  war  will  be  the  inevitable 
result  of  the  clash  of  these  competing  selfish 
national  interests. 

In  other  words,  social  fatalism  and  the  argu- 
ment for  war  based  on  "unchanging  human 
nature"  rest  on  the  belief  in  the  effectiveness  of 
force. 

But  suppose  it  could  be  demonstrated  to  the 
people  of  the  nation  that  nothing  can  be  gained  by 
aggression,  would  it  be  necessary  to  change  human 
nature  to  induce  this  nation  to  give  up  aggression? 

The  disappearance  of  piracy  offers  an  interesting 
analogy.     In   this   case  also  it  was   argued  that 


214       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

piracy  would  never  disappear  because  you  cannot 
change  human  nature.  But  when  pubHc  opinion 
became  sufficiently  enlightened  to  realize  the 
damage  caused  to  commerce  by  the  insecurity  of 
the  high  seas,  it  created  such  effective  police 
measures  that  piracy  as  an  institution  became  an 
increasingly  unprofitable  and  dangerous  occupa- 
tion, and  finally  completely  disappeared,  the 
"unchanging  hiunan  nature"  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  In  other  words,  when  force 
became  obviously  ineffective  for  achieving  the 
end  which  the  pirates  desired,  it  was  abandoned. 

Another  analogy  is  given  by  the  disappearance 
of  the  religious  wars.'  When  men  realized  the 
futility  of  physical  force  for  changing  intellectual 
convictions  and  religious  beliefs,  the  religious  wars 
ceased.  No  change  in  human  nature  was  necessary 
and  the  "fighting  instincts"  remained  as  vigorous 
as  ever.  All  that  occurred  was  a  change  in  certain 
ideas  in  the  minds  of  men,  in  regard  to  the  effective- 
ness or  futility  of  physical  force  in  intellectual 
struggles. 

But  force  has  now  become  futile,  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  to  advance  any  of 
those  interests,  economic,  social,  or  moral,  for 
which  men  live  and  strive. 

What  will  any  of  the  nations — Germany, 
England,  France,  Russia,  Austria-Hungary,  Italy, 
Turkey — gain  from  the  Great  War  to  compensate 
them  for  the  loss  in  life  and  treasure,  the  burden  of 

'  See  supra,  pp.  206-208. 


The  Futility  of  Force  215 

huge  war  debts  and  of  pensions  for  millions  of 
widows  and  orphans,  the  legacy  of  bitterness  and 
hatred,  the  increased  militarization  of  the  minds 
of  the  people,  and  the  destruction  of  millions  of 
the  flower  of  the  race? 

It  is  obvious  that  no  adequate  compensation 
for  sacrifices  of  such  magnitude  can  be  found  in 
material  gain,  conquest  of  territory,  war  indemni- 
ties, or  capture  of  a  rival's  trade. 

Only  an  intellectual  revolution,  a  turning  away 
from  the  false  philosophy  of  force  which  has 
produced  such  disastrous  fruits,  can  render  an 
adequate  compensation  for  the  devotion  and 
self-sacrifice  with  which  millions  of  men  have 
given  their  lives  for  what  they  believed  to  be  a 
great  ideal.  Only  a  reconstruction  of  society 
upon  the  sounder  foundations  of  a  philosophy 
of  co-operation  and  justice  can  make  it  possible 
to  say  that  these  sacrifices  have  not  been  made  in 
vain. 

What  are  the  indications  that  we  may  hope  for 
such  an  intellectual  revolution,  which  will  prepare 
the  way  for  the  organization  of  a  new  Europe  and 
a  new  world? 

The  war  alone  cannot  be  expected  to  produce 
such  an  intellectual  revolution.  Mankind  is,  of 
course,  much  more  impressed  by  cataclysmic 
events,  by  the  unusual  and  dramatic  on  a  vast 
scale  than  by  the  ordinary  occurrences  of  everyday 
life,  and  the  treaty  of  peace  which  ends  the  war 
may  be  expected  to  mark  the  beginning  of  a  new 


2i6       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

epoch  in  human  history.  But  the  military  events 
will  not  determine  what  the  character  of  this  new 
epoch  will  be.  In  fact,  in  so  far  as  it  is  affected 
only  by  the  surface  events  of  the  war,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  human  race  is  as  likely  to  draw  the 
wrong  conclusions  as  the  right  ones. 

The  condition  after  the  war  is  likely  to  resemble 
that  which  followed  the  Thirty  Years'  War. 
Two  main  currents  of  thought  may  be  traced  to 
the  events  of  that  period.  On  the  one  hand, 
Hobbes,  looking  out  upon  the  world  as  he  saw  it, 
drew  his  picture  of  "the  war  of  each  against  all" 
as  the  natural  state  of  man  and  applied  the 
philosophy  of  force  to  the  theory  of  the  State. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  futility  of  force  was  widely 
recognized,  and  the  same  events  which  led  Hobbes 
to  write  his  Leviathan  impelled  Grotius  to  write 
his  De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pads,  which  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  the  science  of  international  law,  and  marks 
the  beginning,  at  least,  of  the  conception  of  a 
society  of  nations  living  iinder  a  reign  of  justice. 

In  the  same  way,  it  is  possible  that  the  end  of  the 
Great  War  may  mark  the  beginning  of  two  powerful 
currents  of  intellectual  forces  which  will  struggle 
for  the  mastery  during  the  next  generation.  On 
the  one  hand,  we  may  have  an  immense  strength- 
ening of  militarism.  If  an  unjust  treaty  of  peace 
should  be  made  by  short-sighted  statesmen  and 
diplomats,  Eiu-ope  would  be  left  an  armed  camp. 
The  resulting  peace  would  be  only  a  temporary 
truce,    and    the    nations    would    concentrate    all 


Militarization  of  Europe  217 

their  resources  for  the  renewal  of  the  struggle  as 
soon  as  they  could  recuperate  their  losses.  The 
philosophy  of  force  and  the  spirit  of  militarism 
have  been  immensely  strengthened  by  the  censor- 
ship of  the  press  and  the  concentration  on  the  work 
of  destruction  in  all  the  belligerent  countries,  and 
this  definite  militarization  of  the  minds  of  the 
people,  if  the  war  is  continued  long  enough,  will 
greatly  strengthen  the  forces  of  reaction.  The  pro- 
cess which  is  going  on  may  be  judged  from  the  fol- 
owing  statement  in  the  London  Morning  Post '  less 
than  three  months  after  the  beginning  of  the  war : 

The  absurd  talk  about  this  war  being  a  war  against 
militarism  has  now  subsided.  .  .  .  There  has  been  in 
the  recent  past  a  horrid  disease  of  internationalism. 
.  .  .  Militarism,  said  to  be  so  bad  a  thing  in  itself, 
has  become  the  sole  business  of  the  nation.  .  .  . 
Democracy  may  still  exist,  but  it  is  no  longer  in 
evidence.  .  .  . 

If  this  is  an  indication  of  the  condition  in  Eng- 
land,— the  most  democratic  of  all  the  countries 
engaged  in  the  war, — the  effect  of  the  process  of 
militarization  and  of  the  suppression  of  the  freedom 
of  the  press  and  of  speech  in  the  other  countries 
can  readily  be  imagined.  Nor  can  it  be  assumed 
that  the  effects  of  this  condition  will  be  only  tempo- 
rary, and  that  after  the  war  everything  will  be 
restored  as  if  by  magic.  A  process  of  militariza- 
tion of  public  opinion  cannot  be  carried  on  day 

'Leading  article,  October  20,  1914. 


2i8       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

by  day  through  a  period  of  months  and  even 
years,  without  profoundly  affecting  the  social  philo- 
sophy of  the  nations  engaged  in  such  a  gigantic 
struggle.  And  the  intellectual  interdependence 
of  nations  has  become  so  great  that  the  effect  of 
this  increase  of  militarism  will  be  felt  in  all  the 
neutral  countries  as  well.  The  world  cannot  exist 
half-democratic  and  half- militaristic.  Not  even 
tariff  walls  or  a  policy  of  isolation  can  prevent  the 
invasion  of  ideas,  and  if  the  philosophy  of  force 
becomes  more  firmly  established  in  Europe  as  the 
result  of  the  war,  it  will  inevitably  spread  to 
America  and  the  other  continents. 

The  effect  of  the  war  upon  the  psychological 
forces  of  inertia  and  indifference  will,  of  course,  be 
important.  The  introduction  into  the  human 
minds  of  a  new  idea,  especially  if  it  is  opposed  to 
a  philosophy  of  life  which  is  widely  disseminated, 
necessitates  an  intellectual  readjustment  which  is 
nearly  always  an  uncomfortable  if  not  a  painful 
process,  and  which  therefore  meets  with  a  resist- 
ance more  or  less  violent.  Writing  as  long  ago  as 
1894,  Novikov  pointed  out  the  influence  of  this 
factor  of  inertia  as  follows: 

We  no  longer  share  the  delusions  of  our  coarse 
ancestors.  We  know  war  does  not  enrich  the  victors, 
we  know  we  cannot  work  on  man's  conscience  by 
material  means,  we  know  that  in  order  to  combat 
an  opinion  we  must  set  up  another  opinion  in  opposi- 
tion to  it.     We  know  all  that,  but,  alas!  the  ancient 


Mental  Inertia  219 

ideas  imbedded  in  our  brains  for  long  generations  are 
not  easily  uprooted.  The  inefficacy  of  war  for  settling 
economic,  political,  and  spiritual  questions  is  evident; 
but  we  persist  in  our  time-worn  ways,  and  continue 
from  tradition  to  use  that  method. 

In  reality  the  civilized  peoples  today  conduct  wars 
simply  because  their  savage  ancestors  did  so  of  old. 
There  is  no  other  reason.  It  is  a  case  of  pure  atavism, 
a  survival,  a  routine.  From  sheer  spiritual  laziness 
they  will  not  abandon  their  accustomed  habits.  Then 
because  the  idea  of  carrying  on  war  without  any  mo- 
tive is  revolting  to  them,  they  erect  theory  on  theory, 
system  on  system  to  justify  it.  ^ 

Here  again  the  influence  of  the  Great  War  may 
be  counted  upon  to  aid  in  the  task  of  overcoming 
the  inertia  and  indifference  which  have  been  among 
the  chief  obstacles  to  a  change  of  ideas  in  the  past. 
A  wide-spread  demand  for  the  democratic  control 
of  the  foreign  policies  of  the  nations,  witnesses 
to  the  disappearance  of  the  old  idea  that  interna- 
tional relations  do  not  intimately  concern  the 
welfare  of  the  people,  and  had  best  be  left  to  the 
diplomatists  and  the  "experts"  in  the  philosophy 
of  force.  Never  have  the  conditions  been  so 
favourable  for  a  thorough  discussion  and  a  funda- 
mental re-examination  of  the  philosophy  upon 
which  rests  not  only  international  relations,  but 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter,  the  entire 
structure  of  society. 

The  changes  which  are  going  on  in  the  minds 

'  J.  Novikov,  War  and  Its  Alleged  Benefits,  pp.  76-77. 


220      The  Intellectual  Revolution 

of  men  as  a  consequence  of  the  Great  War  are 
much  more  important  than  those  which  will  be 
made  on  the  map  of  Europe,  and  the  results  of 
the  struggle  in  the  intellectual  realm  are  fraught 
with  greater  issues  for  the  future  of  humanity 
than  the  results  of  any  military  campaign. 

In  spite  of  the  unfavourable  factors  of  militari- 
zation and  inertia,  there  are  many  indications 
that  the  time  is  ripe  for  the  intellectual  revolution 
which  must  precede  a  reconstruction  of  human 
society  on  sounder  foundations.  The  fallacy  that 
war  is  an  effective  method  for  advancing  national 
welfare,  so  widely  spread  as  the  result  of  a  super- 
ficial reading  of  the  historical  events  of  1870, 
has  been  completely  exposed.  Moreover,  in  the 
presence  of  the  incontestable  facts  of  the  Great 
War,  such  as  casualty  lists  running  up  into  the 
millions,  we  shall  probably  have  less  of  the  glorifi- 
cation of  war.  The  doctrine  that  collective  homi- 
cide is  the  cause  of  human  progress  will  not  be 
in  such  high  favour  in  the  future,  especially  with 
the  democracies  of  the  nations  which  will  have  to 
bear  the  burdens  of  the  war.  A  significant  change 
can  be  noticed  in  the  public  opinion  of  the  nations 
of  Europe,  as  reflected  in  the  official  documents 
issued  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  in  which  there 
is  a  general  repudiation  of  all  aggressive  design 
and  each  nation  insists  that  it  is  fighting  only  a 
defensive  war  for  its  national  existence. 

This  almost  universal  repudiation  of  aggressive 
design,  which  indicates  the  rise  of  a  new  interna- 


Aggression  and  the  Great  War    221 

tional  morality,  based  on  a  more  enlightened 
public  opinion,  has  a  two-fold  significance.  In 
the  first  place  it  probably  indicates  an  intuitive 
and  growing  popular  conviction  of  the  futility  of 
force,  used  aggressively.  In  the  second  place,  even 
where  it  has  not  gone  so  far  as  to  remove  all 
danger  of  aggression  in  the  future,  it  indicates  that 
the  motives  for  aggression  are  becoming  sufficiently 
attenuated  so  as  to  make  possible  the  formation 
of  a  League  of  Peace.  Such  a  league  is  the  only 
means  which  can  satisfy  the  common  need  for 
which  the  leading  statesmen  of  all  the  nations 
say  they  are  fighting, — a  sense  of  security  against 
the  danger  of  aggression  from  any  one  of  their 
number. 

Since  the  effect  of  such  a  League  of  Peace  would 
be  to  raise  the  struggle  between  nations  from  the 
purely  destructive  form — the  physiological  struggle 
— to  its  higher  economic,  political,  and  intellectual 
forms,  it  would  thus  open  the  way  for  an  unprece- 
dented advance  for  the  whole  human  race.  In- 
stead of  a  blood-stained  and  brutalized  Europe 
staggering  up  from  this  conflict  to  begin  another 
forty-four  years  of  insane  armament  competition 
leading  to  a  still  more  calamitous  breakdown  of 
civilization,  we  may  have  at  least  the  beginnings 
of  a  world  federation — a  reconstructed  world 
society  definitely  turning  away  from  the  old  path 
of  force  which  has  proved  so  disastrous,  and 
finding  instead  a  new  path  of  progress,  with 
co-operation  and  justice  as  the  touchstones  of 


222       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

political  and  social  action.  For  the  significance 
of  a  League  of  Peace  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  gives 
official  recognition  to  the  realization  on  the  part 
of  the  nations  that  force,  used  for  aggression,  has 
become  futile  to  advance  the  welfare,  economic, 
social  or  moral,  of  their  people. 

The  realization  of  the  economic  futility  of  force 
is  likely  to  have  its  most  practical  effect  in  modify- 
ing the  foreign  policies  of  nations.  The  Franco- 
Prussian  War  of  1870  with  the  huge  indemnity 
extorted  by  the  victors  from  the  vanquished, 
undoubtedly  led  to  the  belief  by  superficial 
observers  that  war  could  be  made  to  pay,  but  this 
motive  is  probably  not  now  important  as  a  direct 
cause  of  war.  Men  will  not  fight  until  the  moral 
stuff  of  mankind  is  damaged.  But  the  strife  and 
friction  caused  by  false  ideas  of  the  effectiveness  of 
force  to  promote  national  welfare  are  undoubtedly 
contributing  causes  to  the  atmosphere  of  suspicion, 
fear,  and  distrust,  which  are  the  foundations  of 
international  anarchy  and  the  armed  peace. 

The  recognition  of  the  futility  of  force  for  pro- 
moting national  advantage  may  also  be  expected 
to  contribute  to  the  movement  for  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  including  the  establishment  of  the 
immunity  of  private  property  at  sea  and  the 
substitution  of  international  control  of  the  high- 
ways of  the  nations  for  control  by  the  greatest 
naval  power.  And  with  this  movement  toward 
greater  freedom  of  trade  and  international  co- 


Economic  Futility  of  Force       223 

operation  will  come  a  weakening  of  the  old  mer- 
cantilist conception  of  the  nations  as  rival  trade 
units,  while  a  recognition  of  the  community  of 
economic  interests  of  the  family  of  nations  will  lead 
to  a  gradual  undermining  of  the  fallacy  that  the 
prosperity  of  one  State  can  only  be  obtained  at  the 
cost  of  the  disadvantage  of  another  State. 

The  realization  of  the  economic  futility  of  force 
is  important  because  economic  facts  are  the 
foundations  of  social  well-being  and,  as  we  shall 
see  in  a  later  chapter,  the  welfare  of  society 
constitutes  the  rational  and  scientific  standard  of 
morality.^  The  realization  of  the  social  futility 
of  force  will  lead  inevitably  to  a  recognition  of  the 
true  nature  of  social  struggles,  which  always  take 
place  by  means  of  psychic  processes.  In  recent 
years  there  has  been  a  marked  tendency  towards 
an  increasing  recognition  of  the  futility  of  physical 
force  to  achieve  social  results.  Illustrations  of 
this  tendency  are  found  in  the  partial  abandon- 
ment, after  repeated  failure,  of  Prussian  and 
Russian  methods  of  denationalizing  the  Polish 
people;  in  the  grant  of  a  constitution  to  Alsace 
and  Lorraine,  and  in  the  granting  of  Home  Rule 
to  South  Africa.  The  passing  of  the  Home  Rule 
bill  for  Ireland  is  especially  significant  because  it 
marks  the  tiirning  away  from  the  old  methods  of 
force  tried  in  vain  for  more  than  three  hundred 
years. 

'See  Chapter  XL,  "The  Relation  of  Morality  and  Self- 
interest." 


224       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

■  The  appeal  to  force  by  a  minority  in  order  to 
maintain  itself  in  power  is  likely  to  become  less 
and  less  frequent  as  the  futility  of  force  to  with- 
stand a  united  public  opinion  becomes  more 
apparent.  With  the  cessation  of  reliance  upon 
force  by  minorities  to  thwart  the  will  of  majorities, 
the  occasion  for  the  use  of  force  by  these  majorities 
will  become  increasingly  rare  and  the  political 
revolutions,  which  embody  the  results  of  intellect- 
ual revolutions,  will  take  place  without  bloodshed 
and  violence.  Since  1906,  especially,  the  Russian 
revolutionists  have  learned  that  they  must  rely 
upon  intellectual  processes  for  ultimate  victory, 
and  they  have  been  tirelessly  at  work  in  the 
intervening  years.  In  so  far  as  the  Russian 
Revolution  of  1906  relied  upon  violence,  like  the 
French  Revolution,  it  became  affected  by  the  in- 
strument which  it  used.  It  led  to  a  cumulative 
development  of  violence,  and  this  in  turn  led  to  a 
reign  of  terror,  to  a  recoil  of  all  the  saner  elements 
who  recognized  the  indispensable  need  of  law 
and  order,  to  reaction,  to  the  "man  on  horse- 
back," and  the  inevitable  failure  to  establish  that 
new  heaven  and  new  earth  for  which  men  were 
willing  to  give  their  lives  with  such  complete 
abandonment  and  self-sacrifice. 

The  realization  of  the  futility  of  force  to  advance 
the  moral  ideals  of  mankind  will  constitute  the 
most  important  effect  of  the  intellectual  revolu- 
tion. Men  will  not  fight  until  they  are  appealed 
to  on  some  moral  issue, — on  the  ground  of  some 


Men  Fight  Only  for  Moral  Ideals  225 

high  ideal  of  justice,  or  of  altruistic  motives.  In 
the  Great  War  the  support  of  the  German  people 
was  gained  only  by  the  appeal  to  their  devotion 
to  the  existence  of  the  Fatherland  and  the  altruistic 
motive  of  protecting  its  ally,  Austria-Hungary. 
In  the  same  way  the  appeal  to  the  Russian  people 
emphasized  the  need  of  their  little  Servian  brother. 
To  the  French  people  the  liberation  of  Alsace  and 
Lorraine  from  the  Prussian  conqueror  was  the 
motive.  The  British  people  enlisted  to  free 
Belgium;  and  the  Italian  people  were  carried  into 
the  war  by  a  passion  for  "unredeemed  Italy," 
the  Italia  irredenta.  The  war  was  proclaimed  as 
a  great  moral  crusade  to  crush  militarism  or  naval- 
ism,  to  overthrow  Prussianism  or  Russianism,  and 
to  free  Europe  from  its  reign  of  terror.  Under  the 
influence  of  these  moral  ideals,  in  every  country 
all  consideration  was  abandoned  for  the  great  eco- 
domic  interests  of  national  welfare,  the  sacrifice  of 
life  and  treasiire,  the  immense  burden  of  suffering 
and  misery  for  the  present  generation  and  their 
posterity. 

But  soon  after  its  beginning  a  marked  degen- 
eration of  purpose  became  evident.  ^  As  the  forces 
of  reaction  were  strengthened  by  the  war,  the  de- 
mand for  retaliation  replaced  that  for  the  sanctity 

'  A  remarkable  collection  of  the  evidence  of  this  degeneration 
of  moral  purpose  during  the  first  twelve  months  of  war  has  been 
published  in  War  and  Peace,  vol.  iii,,  numbers  22-26,  August- 
November,  1915.  See  also  Norman  Angell,  America  and  the  New 
World-State,  Part  II.,  for  a  discussion  of  the  moral  reactions  of 
force. 

IS 


226       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

of  international  law ;  a  lust  for  annexation  and  con- 
quest began  to  dominate  the  militaristic  press; 
and  the  repudiation  of  the  higher  motives  an- 
nounced at  the  beginning  of  the  war  has  gone  on 
increasingly.  It  seems  even  possible  that  a  war 
entered  upon  on  the  part  of  the  Allies  to  destroy 
Prussian  militarism  may  result  in  enthroning  mili- 
tarism in  all  Europe  for  a  decade  or  a  generation. 
The  demonstration  upon  so  large  a  scale  that  wars 
entered  upon  with  high  ideals  must  fail  to  attain 
those  ideals  because  they  fail  to  recognize  the 
nature  of  the  instrument  which  they  use  and 
the  process  by  which  moral  progress  is  made, 
may  result  in  profound  changes  in  the  ideas  and 
actions  of  men,  just  as  the  demonstration  on  a 
large  scale  of  the  failure  of  physical  force  to 
suppress  heresy  led  to  the  rise  of  tolerance  and  the 
abandonment  of  physical  force  in  the  realm  of 
intellectual  conviction. 

When  the  futility  of  force  becomes  widely  recog- 
nized and  the  true  nature  of  social  struggle  is 
known,  we  may  expect  an  enormous  increase  of 
activity  in  the  intellectual  realm — the  most 
fruitful  field  of  struggle.  We  may  expect  the 
creation  of  a  new  science  of  social  engineering, 
seeking  to  improve  institutions  by  modifying 
ideas,  and  using  all  the  marvellous  instruments 
of  the  press  and  the  telegraph,  the  church  and 
all  educational  institutions,  the  moving-picture 
and  the  phonograph,  now  almost  entirely  imder 


A  Truer  Social  Philosophy       22^ 

the  control  of  blind  social  forces.  The  irresistible 
growth  of  democracy  in  all  parts  of  the  world  will 
be  tremendously  stimulated.  We  may  expect 
whole  libraries  of  books  to  be  written  upon 
methods  of  propaganda  and  the  organization  of 
campaigns  for  changing  and  enlightening  public 
opinion,  just  as  they  are  now  written  upon  military 
strategy  and  tactics.  Monuments  and  tablets  of 
honour  will  be  erected  to  the  great  educators, 
statesmen,  authors,  and  men  of  genius,  just  as 
they  are  now  erected  to  the  great  leaders  of 
armies  and  navies  whose  work  has  been  chiefly 
destructive,  but  whom  we  believe  to  be  the 
leaders  and  saviours  of  civilization,  because  of  the 
dominance  of  the  doctrine  that  war  has  been  the 
cause  of  human  progress. 

The  chief  advantages  which  will  flow  from  such 
an  intellectual  revolution,  however,  will  occur 
through  the  establishment  of  a  sounder  and  truer 
social  philosophy  as  the  foundation  for  a  recon- 
structed civilization.  Our  detailed  analysis  has 
shown  that  the  whole  philosophy  of  force  is  false 
and  constitutes  one  of  the  most  colossal  and  disas- 
trous errors  that  has  ever  darkened  the  soul  and 
mind  of  man.  For  a  large  part  of  the  human 
race,  even  though  it  does  not  make  this  careful 
analysis,  the  great  outstanding  fact  of  the  war 
itself  will  furnish  a  sufficient  demonstration  that 
the  path  of  force  is  a  wrong  one  and  military  power 
is  a  futile  instrument  to  advance  the  welfare  of 
any  nation  or  even  to  protect  a  nation  from  the 


228       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

loss  of  the  flower  of  its  manhood  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  its  national  wealth.  On  the  part  of  the 
growing  democratic  forces  of  the  nations  at  least 
we  shall  witness  a  definite  turning  away  from  a 
philosophy  which  has  proven  itself  false  by  leading 
so  directly  and  so  inevitably  to  such  a  breakdown 
of  civilization. 

But  if  the  old  path  of  force  is  wrong,  how  are 
we  to  escape  from  it,  where  shall  we  find  the  main 
highway  of  true  progress,  from  which  the  human 
race  has  wandered  so  far  astray? 

As  between  nations,  at  least,  the  new  path  is 
known.  It  consists  in  world  organization — the 
establishment  of  a  system  of  international  justice 
to  replace  the  disastrous  international  anarchy  of 
the  past.  Can  this  special  solution  be  generalized 
for  the  entire  social  order?  Can  any  guiding 
principle  be  found  for  the  whole  problem  of  the 
place  of  force  in  human  relations? 

At  least  it  is  a  gain  to  have  found,  even  though 
it  has  been  at  such  a  terrible  cost  of  life  and 
treasure,  that  the  path  which  has  been  followed 
in  the  past  is  a  wrong  one.  The  recognition  of 
error  is  the  first  step  towards  truth.  And  at  least 
we  can  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  we  will  take  as  a 
touchstone  of  social  and  political  action  in  the 
future  this  question,  "Will  this  action,  if  adopted, 
lead  towards  a  diminution  of  physical  j or ce  in  human 
relationships?^' 

Since  force  is  socially,  morally,  and  economically 


Force  Proportional  to  Injustice    229 

futile  to  advance  human  progress,  we  are  logically 
compelled  to  ask  ourselves  the  next  question, 
"What  condition  leads  towards  a  minimum  of  this 
element  of  physical  force  in  human  relationships?" 
We  can  find  the  solution  of  this  problem  most 
easily,  if  we  turn  it  around  and  ask,  "What  condi- 
tion leads  towards  a  maximum  of  force  in  human 
relationships?"  The  reply  to  this  question  is 
Injustice.  We  find  a  direct  relationship  between 
the  amount  of  injustice  of  a  given  social  order  and 
the  amount  of  force  necessary  to  maintain  that 
order,  whether  we  consider  national  injustice,  as 
where  a  dominant  race  like  that  of  the  governing 
minority  in  Austria  attempts  to  suppress  the 
national  aspirations  of  80%  of  the  Hapsburg 
Empire  by  military  force;  or  political  injustice, 
as  where  an  autocratic  minority  as  in  Russia  and 
Prussia  relies  upon  the  control  of  military  power  to 
maintain  its  position;  or  economic  injustice,  as  in 
Colorado,  where  machine-guns  and  mine  guards, 
state  militia  and  federal  troops,  were  necessary  to 
bolster  up  a  wrong  industrial  system. 

Conversely  the  more  nearly  a  social  structure 
approaches  the  condition  of  justice  the  less  will 
be  the  amount  of  force  required  to  maintain  the 
balance  in  this  society.  If  then  we  desire  to 
escape  from  the  wrong  path  of  force,  which  leads 
only  to  destruction,  we  have  only  to  turn  back  to 
the  true  path  of  social  progress,  the  path  of  justice. 
With  the  establishment  of  justice,  social,  political, 
international,  the  necessity  for  force  automatically 


230       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

disappears.  The  two  elements,  force  and  justice, 
are  inversely  proportional  in  any  social  structure. 

In  returning  to  the  true  path  of  social  progress, 
the  path  of  justice,  we  are  returning  to  the  social 
teachings  of  Darwin.  Darwin's  whole  theory  of 
social  progress  is  based  on  the  moral  law,  the 
foundation  of  which  he  states  as  the  principle  of 
reciprocity:  "As  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to 
you,  do  ye  to  them  likewise."'  The  task  of  re- 
construction, then,  depends  primarily  upon  an 
intellectual  revolution.  We  must  not  only  over- 
throw the  false  philosophy  of  force,  but  we  must 
enthrone  in  its  place  the  true  philosophy  of  social, 
political,  and  international  justice. 

It  is,  of  course,  apparent  that  however  great  the 
favouring  conditions,  such  an  intellectual  revolu- 
tion cannot  accomplish  itself,  but  must  be  the 
result  of  hard  intellectual  work,  of  the  contribu- 
tions of  many  minds  who  come  to  the  task  from 
all  the  fields  of  human  interest.  The  reconstruc- 
tion of  social  theories  upon  the  sounder  foundations 
of  co-operation,  justice,  and  the  moral  law  can 
only  take  place  by  the  same  process  of  conscious 
intellectual  effort  by  which  the  anti-social,  anti- 
scientific,  and  anti-democratic  philosophy  of  force 
which  we  have  been  studying  was  established. 
Nietzsche  has  outlined  for  us  the  sj'-stematic  intel- 
lectual process  by  which  the  false  philosophy  of 
force,  which  has  played  such  havoc  with  the  social 
structure  of  mankind,  was  established: 

*  Darwin,  The  Descent  of  Man,  chap,  iv.,  p.  142. 


Progress  Proportional  to  Justice    231 

We  who  hold  a  different  belief — we,  who  regard 
the  democratic  movement,  not  only  as  a  degenerating 
form  of  political  organization,  but  as  equivalent  to  a 
degenerating,  a  waning  type  of  man,  as  involving 
his  mediocrizing  and  depreciation:  where  have  we 
to  fix  our  hopes?  In  new  philosophers — there  is  no 
other  alternative :  in  minds  strong  and  original  enough 
to  initiate  opposite  estimates  of  value.  ^ 

The  task  of  reconstruction  in  social  philosophy  is 
distinct  from  that  which  Nietzsche  outlines,  in  that 
it  does  not  consist  in  setting  up  a  false  standard  of 
value  and  then  building  a  theory  to  correspond. 
The  new  social  philosophy  must  begin  with  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  structure  of  society; 
science  must  be  its  guiding  star,  and  its  watchword, 
"The  truth  shall  make  you  free."  Its  greatest 
hope  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  runs  with,  not  counter 
to,  the  great  world  currents  of  democracy  and  the 
fundamental  social  instincts  of  the  human  race. 

This  intellectual  revolution,  this  replacing  of 
the  idea  of  force  by  the  idea  of  justice  as  the 
guiding  principle  of  social  and  political  action,  is 
fraught  with  an  untold  wealth  of  promise  for  the 
advancement  of  the  human  race.  Thus  far  we 
have  failed  to  reap  the  fruits  of  that  unparalleled 
advance  in  the  physical  world,  in  the  mastery  of 
the  laws  of  nature  and  the  increased  productivity 
of  labour,  which  have  been  the  dominant  char- 
acteristics of  the  past  century.     No  addition  has 

'  Nietzsche,  Beyond  Good  and  Evil,  "  The  Natural  History  of 
Morals,"  p.  22. 


232       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

been  made  to  the  sum  total  of  human  happiness. 
Paradoxical  as  may  seem  such  a  consequence  of 
this  enormous  increase  in  the  productivity  of  each 
individual  workman,  the  amount  of  poverty,  dis- 
ease, and  suffering,  the  slums  of  the  cities,  and  the 
burden  of  fear  and  of  care  in  the  life  of  the  common 
man  have  been  greatly  increased  since  the  coming 
of  the  industrial  revolution. 

Mr.  A.  R.  Wallace,  the  co-discoverer  with 
Darwin  of  the  theory  of  evolution,  has  reached  the 
conclusion  that  the  human  race  has  degenerated 
morally  during  the  past  centm-y.  ^  May  it  not  be 
that  this  failure  to  make  social,  intellectual,  and 
moral  progress  corresponding  to  the  progress 
which  we  have  made  in  the  physical  world  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  we  have  relied  upon  this  false 
principle  of  physical  force  as  an  effective  measure 
in  human  relations?  This  is  the  conclusion  which 
at  least  one  noted  historian^  has  reached.  He 
states  his  conclusion  as  follows : 

The  slow  moral  progress  of  European  civilization 
during  the  last  two  or  three  centuries,  compared  with 
its  wonderful  intellectual  and  material  progress,  may 
with  little  hesitation  be  attributed  in  large  part  to  the 
unfavourable  influence  of  its  war  ethics  upon  its  every- 
day moral  code.  The  war  code  is  applied  to  politics, 
to  ordinary  business,  and  to  the  relations  of  the  indus- 
trial classes.  ...  So  long  as  nations  act  under  the 

•Wallace,  Social  Environment  and  Moral  Progress,  1913. 
Chapter  xvii.,  p.  169. 

»  Philip  Van  Ness  Myers,  History  as  Past  Ethics,  pp.  379-380. 


Intellectual  Revolutions  in  the  Past  233 

illusion  that  they  may  without  moral  wrong  employ 
violence  to  obtain  justice,  just  so  long  will  there  be 
individuals  who  with  good  conscience  will  seek  justice 
through  violence. 

The  change  in  ideas  and  the  establishment  of  a 
true  theory  of  human  relationship  which  must 
precede  social  reconstruction  may  be  compared 
with  three  other  intellectual  revolutions  which 
have  profoundly  affected  the  minds  of  men  and  led 
to  marvellous  advances  in  the  realms  of  physical 
science,  philosophy,  and  astronomy. 

In  the  physical  sciences  we  had  an  intellectual 
revolution  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  and 
Renaissance,  when  men  turned  away  from  the 
principle  of  intellectual  force — authority — as  a 
method  of  discovering  truth  and  found  instead  the 
method  of  experiment  and  direct  observation.  In 
that  marvellous  change  in  the  minds  of  men  when 
they  abandoned  the  barren  path  of  the  deductive 
method  and  struck  out  upon  the  new  highroad  of 
the  inductive  method  we  find  the  cause  of  that 
marvellous  advance  in  our  knowledge  of  the  physi- 
cal universe  and  of  our  conquest  of  the  forces  of 
nature  which  has  been  the  glory  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

In  the  same  way  in  the  intellectual  revolution 
which  is  now  taking  place,  in  which  men  are  turn- 
ing away  from  the  old  barren  path  of  destructive 
violence  and  finding  instead  the  highroad  of  social, 
political,  and  international  justice,  we  are  entering 
upon  an  era  of  advance  which  may  enable  us  at 


234       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

last  to  reach  the  social  and  spiritual  heights  corre- 
sponding to  the  progress  which  has  been  made  in 
the  mastery  of  the  material  universe. 

In  philosophy  we  had  an  intellectual  revolution 
in  the  time  of  Immanuel  Kant,  when  men  turned 
away  from  the  external  universe  as  the  essential 
truth  and  found  instead  the  mind  and  the  spirit 
of  man  as  the  eternal  reality.  Kant's  critical  study 
of  the  laws  of  the  mind,  and  of  the  senses  by  which 
we  perceive  the  manifestations  of  nature,  led  to  a 
marvellous  extension  of  the  power  of  man  to 
understand  the  universe,  and  is  the  threshold 
from  which  modern  philosophy  starts  on  its 
quest  for  the  Holy  Grail  of  Truth. 

In  the  same  way  in  the  social  revolution,  by 
turning  away  from  the  struggle  of  physical  force 
in  the  external  world  and  concentrating  our 
energies  instead  upon  the  struggle  for  truth  and 
justice  in  the  intellectual  realm,  we  shall  be  open- 
ing the  way  for  a  reconstruction  of  our  social 
institutions  upon  rational  lines,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  true  principles  of  human  relationships 
which  emerge  as  the  result  of  this  intellectual 
struggle. 

In  astronomy  the  intellectual  revolution  which 
marked  the  change  from  the  old  Ptolemaic  sys- 
tem, in  which  the  earth  was  considered  as  the 
centre  of  the  planetary  system,  to  the  true  or 
Copernican  system  in  which  the  sun  became 
the  centre,  illustrates  most  clearly  the  nature 
of  the  present   intellectual  revolution,  in  which 


Contribution  of  the  Social  Sciences    235 

men  are  turning  away  from  false  theories  as  to 
the  natiire  and  structure  of  human  society  and  are 
finding  instead  the  true  principles  of  co-operation 
and  justice  upon  which  all  human  relationships 
are  naturally  based.  Under  the  false  Ptolemaic 
system,  with  the  earth  as  the  centre,  an  extra- 
ordinarily complex  system  of  cycles  and  epicycles, 
of  crystal  spheres  and  celestial  orbits,  had  to  be 
built  up  to  explain  the  revolution  of  the  planets 
and  the  sun  around  the  earth,  while  every  new  fact 
which  was  discovered  increased  the  complexity 
of  the  system.  As  soon  as  the  sun  came  to  be 
considered  as  the  central  body,  however,  the 
solar  system  became  extraordinarily  simple,  with 
the  planets  revolving  in  majestic  ellipses  around  a 
common  focus  at  the  sun,  while  every  new  fact 
that  was  discovered  fitted  into  its  proper  place  and 
made  the  system  more  perfect  and  more  complete. 
Thus  the  way  was  opened  for  Kepler's  discovery 
of  the  three  great  laws  of  planetary  motion;  this 
in  turn  led  the  way  to  Newton's  discovery  of 
the  law  of  gravitation  and  so  the  foundations  were 
laid  for  all  the  marvellous  developments  of  the 
modern  physical  sciences. 

In  the  same  manner  a  false  social  philosophy, 
out  of  accord  with  the  great  fundamental  facts  of 
human  society,  has  led  to  an  infinite  complication 
and  distortion  of  the  whole  social  structure,  while 
a  new  and  true  social  philosophy,  based  upon 
direct  observation  of  the  facts  of  social  life  and 
upon  their  scientific  study  and  systematization, 


236       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

will  lead  to  an  equally  marvellous  advance  in  the 
social  and  spiritual  life  of  mankind.  If  the  path 
of  error  in  social  philosophy  has  led  to  untold 
misery  and  suffering  for  the  human  race,  we  may 
expect  that  the  path  of  truth  will  lead  to  a  redeemed 
human  society  and  a  sum  of  human  happiness — 
a  life  more  abundant — such  as  "eye  hath  not 
seen,  ear  hath  not  heard,  neither  hath  entered  into 
the  heart  of  man"  in  all  the  Golden  Ages  of  the 
past. 

In  this  great  task  of  replacing  error  by  truth 
in  the  social  philosophy  of  mankind  we  shall  need 
the  aid  of  all  the  sciences  of  the  humanities, — 
sociology,  economics,  history,  political  science, 
philosophy,  and  ethics.  As  sociology'  approaches 
more  nearly  to  the  standard  of  a  real  science,  we 
must  look  to  it  more  and  more  for  the  annunciation 
of  great  general  principles  which  shall  guide 
social  and  political  action. 

To  economics  we  must  look  for  an  exposure  of 
the  fallacies  which  underlie  the  belief  in  the  antago- 
nism and  the  economic  rivalry  of  nations ;  for  the 
spread  of  an  understanding  of  the  true  facts  of 
international  relations  and  of  a  practical  realiza- 
tion of  the  economic  solidarity  of  the  entire  human 
race. 

In  the  science  of  history  we  shall  receive  most 
aid  from  the  new  school  which  is  turning  away 

'  Besides  the  epoch-making  works  of  Novikov,  those  of  Muller- 
Lyer,  in  Germany,  and  of  Professor  Giddings,  in  America,  are 
among  the  most  valuable  contributions  in  modern  sociology. 


An  Army  of  Social  Reform       237 

from  the  philosophy  of  force,  the  study  of  military 
and  political  events  as  the  chief  factor  in  evolution, 
and  is  tracing  instead  the  true  History  of  Civiliza- 
tion. This  new  school  of  history  is  beginning  to 
find  a  clear  guiding  principle  in  Kant's  theory  of 
universal  history  as  the  growth  of  a  world  com- 
munity, reconciling  the  freedom  of  individuals  and 
of  individual  nations  with  the  accomplishment  of 
a  common  aim  for  mankind  as  a  whole.  ^ 

In  political  science,  especially,  an  unprecedented 
advance  may  be  expected  to  result  from  replacing 
the  false  principle  of  force  by  the  true  principle 
of  justice  as  the  foundation  of  States. 

From  the  practical  application  of  philosophy, 
logic,  ^  and  ethics  to  social  problems  in  the  light  of 
Darwin's  theory  of  the  moral  law  as  the  basis  of 
all  social  progress,  we  may  expect  an  indispensable 
strengthening  of  the  intellectual  foundations  upon 
which  must  rest  democracy,  and  the  morality  and 
rational  religion  of  the  future. 

When  we  understand  how  the  distortion  of  the 
false  philosophy  of  force  has  spread  all  through  the 
social  structure,^  we  shall  realize  that  all  social 

'  See  F.  S.  Marvin,  The  Living  Past:  a  Sketch  of  Western  Pro- 
gress, Oxford  University  Press,  19 13,  and  Philip  Van  Ness 
Myers,  History  as  Past  Ethics.     Ginn  and  Company,  1913. 

'  See  John  M.  Robertson,  Letters  on  Reasoning,  Watts  &  Co., 
London,  1905,  for  illustrations  of  how  non-academic  logic  may 
contribute  to  social  progress,  and  for  a  summary  of  the  work 
hy  Jevons  and  others  which  has  been  done  already  in  this 
field. 

3  See  Chapter  VIII.,  "Force  and  the  Social  Structure,"  for  a 
number  of  illustrations  of  this  distortion. 


238       The  Intellectual  Revolution 

workers  have  at  bottom  the  same  task, — the 
establishment  of  a  true  philosophy  of  social, 
political,  and  international  justice,  as  the  basis 
for  the  reconstruction  and  redemption  of  human 
society.  The  peace  movement,  with  its  goal  of 
world  federation,  is  the  unifying  thesis  of  all 
social  reform,  and  from  a  realization  of  this  fact 
and  the  resulting  co-operation  of  all  forces  making 
for  social  progress  may  be  expected  an  unparal- 
leled accession  of  power  and  rapidity  of  advance. 
Social  workers  have  been  justly  compared  by  Mr. 
Hobhouse  to  a  number  of  guerrilla  bands,  striving 
at  cross  purposes,  and  even  warring  against  each 
other,  but  with  the  coming  of  the  intellectual  re- 
volution they  will  be  transformed  into  an  army  of 
social  reform,  irresistible  in  the  strength  of  its  unity 
and  of  its  demand  for  righteousness  and  justice 
as  the  universal  principle  of  the  expansion  of 
Hfe. 

The  reconstruction  of  ideas  must  precede  the 
reconstruction  of  society,  however,  and  it  is  to  this 
intellectual  revolution  and  the  indispensable  clarifi- 
cation of  thought  that  we  must  first  direct  our 
attention.  Thus  far  we  have  been  engaged  in  a  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  errors  of  the  philosophy 
of  force, — biological  sociological,  political,  econo- 
mic, and  moral.  Following  this  work  of  destruc- 
tion, the  clearing  of  the  ground  of  the  ruins  of  the 
old  structure  in  order  to  make  way  for  the  new,  we 
shall  proceed,  after  a  survey  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  philosophy  of  force  has  distorted  the  whole 


The  Reconstruction  of  Ideas       239 

structure  of  modern  society,  to  a  study  of  Dar- 
win's true  theory  of  social  progress,  as  the  basis 
for  the  establishment  of  the  new  and  liberating 
philosophy  of  justice. 


PART  II 

MUTUAL  AID  AS  A  FACTOR  OF  SOCIAL 
PROGRESS 


i6  241 


CHAPTER  VIII 

FORCE    AND    THE    SOCIAL    STRUCTURE 

THE  philosophy  of  force,  which  is  writ  large  in 
the  conduct  of  nations,  runs  all  through  the 
social  structiire  and  distorts  all  our  ideas  of  human 
relationships.  We  have  noted  already  in  Chapter 
II.,  the  manner  in  which  "social  Darwinism" 
has  supplied  an  apparently  scientific  foundation 
for  anti-social  theories  ranging  from  extreme 
individualism  and  the  policy  of  laissez-faire  to 
the  most  ruthless  forms  of  modern  Imperialism. 
Wherever  we  examine  closely  the  institutions  of  the 
society  in  which  we  live  we  can  trace  the  effects 
of  the  tool — force — which  man  has  used  and  mis- 
used in  the  coiirse  of  his  evolution.  In  what  fol- 
lows we  shall  try  to  find  how  far  the  introduction 
of  force,  and  of  the  philosophy  which  goes  with  it, 
has  reacted  upon  the  society  which  has  used  it. 

The  organization  of  the  States  for  war  pro- 
foundly influences  the  political  life  of  the  nation 
and  results  in  certain  definite  social  phenomena,  af- 
fecting even  the  personal  conduct  and  ethics  of  each 
individual  citizen.     Herbert  Spencer'  has  traced 

'  Principles  of  Sociology,  vol.  ii.,  part  v.,  chapters  xvii  and  xviii. 
243 


244    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

the  effect  of  this  distortion  through  the  philosophy 
of  force,  in  two  remarkable  chapters  on  the 
miHtant  type  of  society  and  the  industrial  type  of 
society — types  which  are  found  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  in  every  nation. 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  militant  type 
of  society,  according  to  Spencer,  is  compulsory 
co-operation.  He  describes  some  of  its  char- 
acteristics thus: 

Under  the  militant  type  the  individual  is  owned  by 
the  State.  While  preservation  of  the  society  is  the 
primary  end,  preservation  of  each  member  is  a  second- 
ary end — an  end  cared  for  chiefly  as  subserving  the 
primary  end.  .  .  .  Chronic  militancy  tends  to  develop 
a  despotism.  Labour  is  carried  on  under  coercion; 
and  supervision  spreads  everywhere. 

Under  the  system  of  compulsory  co-operation  a 
social  structure  is  developed  which  strongly  resists 
change.  The  principle  of  inheritance,  becoming  es- 
tablished in  respect  of  the  classes  in  which  militancy 
originates,  tends  eventually  to  fix  also  their  special 
functions  .  .  .  tends  to  fix  the  position  of  each  in 
rank,  in  occupation,  and  in  locality.  .  .  .  Organizations 
other  than  those  forming  parts  of  the  state-organiza- 
tion are  wholly  or  partially  repressed.  The  public 
combination  occupying  all  fields  excludes  private 
combinations.  .  .  .  Obviously,  indeed,  such  combina- 
tions based  on  the  principle  of  voluntary  co-opera- 
tion, are  incongruous  with  social  arrangements  on 
the  principle  of  compulsory  co-operation.  Hence  the 
militant  type  is  characterized  by  the  absence,  or  com- 
parative rarity,  of  bodies   of  citizens  associated  for 


Militarism  and  Democracy        245 

commercial  purposes,  for  propagating  special  religious 
views,  for  achieving  philanthropic  ends,  etc.^ 

Spencer  thus  shows  in  a  striking  manner  how 
the  questions  of  liberty  and  democratic  govern- 
ment are  bound  up  with  the  problem  of  war  and 
the  philosophy  of  force.  The  modern  names  for 
what  Spencer  calls  the  militant  and  the  industrial 
types  of  society  are  militarism  and  democracy. 
The  terms  are  diametrically  opposed.  Democracy 
is  based  on  government  by  consent  and  the  princi- 
ple of  voluntary  co-operation,  in  which  authority 
proceeds  from  below.  ' '  Government  of  the  people, 
by  the  people,  for  the  people,"  is  Lincoln's  defini- 
tion. Militarism  is  based  on  the  principle  of 
government  by  force,  on  the  principle  of  com- 
pulsory co-operation  in  which  authority  proceeds 
from  above.  It  is  no  accident  that  the  most 
autocratic  governments  are  found  in  those  coun- 
tries where  militarism  has  most  undisputed  sway. 
Both  are  logical  results  of  the  belief  that  society 
is  founded  upon  force  and  that  authority  proceeds 
from  above  downward.  The  principle  of  both  is  gov- 
ernment of  the  people,  by  the  rulers,  for  the  State. 

The  profound  distrust  with  which  the  demo- 
cratic forces  in  the  European  countries  have  looked 
upon  the  influence  of  the  army  and  navy  officers 
in  the  councils  of  the  autocratic  Powers  may  be 
considered  to  have  been  amply  justified  by  the 
course  of  events  leading  up  to  the  outbreak  of  the 

'  Principles  of  Sociology,  vol.  ii.,  chap,  xvii.,  pp.  572-576. 


/ 


246    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

war.  Even  in  times  of  peace  the  recent  history 
of  the  clashes  between  the  miHtary  and  civil 
authorities  in  the  Dreyfus  affair  in  France,  the 
Zabern  incident  in  Germany,  and  in  the  Ulster 
crisis  in  England  illustrates  the  difficulty  which  the 
civil  authorities  find  in  trying  to  subject  military 
power  to  democratic  control.  In  America  the 
fundamental  opposition  between  democracy  and 
militarism  has  been  emphasized  by  President 
Wilson  in  his  message  to  Congress,  December 
8,  1914,  in  which  he  said: 

Allow  me  to  speak  with  great  plainness  and  direct- 
ness upon  this  great  matter,  and  to  avow  my  convic- 
tions with  deep  earnestness.  I  have  tried  to  know 
what  America  is,  what  her  people  think,  what  they 
are,  what  they  most  cherish  and  hold  dear.  I  hope 
that  some  of  their  finer  passions  are  in  my  own  heart 
— some  of  the  great  conceptions  and  desires  which 
gave  birth  to  this  government  and  which  have  made 
the  voice  of  this  people  a  voice  of  peace  and  hope  and 
liberty  among  the  peoples  of  the  world,  and  thus 
speaking  my  own  thoughts,  I  shall,  at  least  in  part, 
speak  theirs,  however  plainly  and  inadequately,  upon 
this  vital  matter.  .  .  . 

From  the  first  we  have  had  a  clear  and  a  settled  policy 
with  regard  to  military  establishment.  We  never  have 
had,  and  while  we  retain  our  present  principles  and 
ideals,  we  never  shall  have,  a  large  standing  army. 

Not  all  military  officers  are  militarists,  and 
there  are,  of  course,  many  militarists  outside  the 
military  profession.     MiHtarism  is  essentially  a 


Militarism  Is  a  State  of  Mind     247 

state  of  mind, — a  social  philosophy;  and  the  chief 
democratic  objection  to  large  standing  armies 
and  military  training  is  that  it  tends  to  multiply 
those  who  hold  this  militaristic  social  philosophy. 

If  military  force  could  be  confined  to  the  func- 
tions of  defence  and  police  force,  its  increase 
would  not  be  regarded  with  the  distrust  which  it 
arouses  at  the  present  time  in  democratic  nations. 
But  until  a  League  of  Peace  is  formed,  no  country 
can  have  any  guarantee  that  a  military  force 
created  for  defence  will  not  be  used  for  aggression. 
In  fact,  as  we  have  seen  in  Chapter  VI.,  it  is  a 
logical  part  of  the  militaristic  philosophy  of  force 
that  since  war  is  a  law  of  Natiu-e,  and  therefore 
inevitable,  attack  at  the  most  favourable  opportu- 
nity is  not  only  the  best  method  of  defence,  but 
an  imperative  national  duty. 

The  dangers  of  a  military  caste  have  been 
emphasized  by  Lord  Bryce,  the  recent  British 
Ambassador  to  America,  who  points  out  that 
during  the  hundred  years  of  peace  in  the  English- 
speaking  world  a  number  of  disputes  which  might 
have  led  to  war  did  not  do  so  because  in  America 

fortunately  .  .  .  the  country  was  free  from  that  per- 
nicious influence  of  a  professional  military  caste  which 
works  such  frightful  evil  in  Europe,  being  indeed 
driven  to  desire  opportunities  for  practising  the  work 
for  which  the  profession  exists/ 

'  The  British  Empire  and  the  United  States,  by  W.  A.  Dunning, 
with  an  introduction  by  the  Right  Hon.  Viscoitnt  Bryce,  New 
York,  1914,  pp.  xxix-xxx. 


248    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

Bismarck  is  still  more  definite  in  pointing  out  this 
danger.  In  his  autobiography  he  gives  a  vivid 
account  of  this  constant  pressure  of  the  thousands 
of  officers  of  the  Prussian  army  towards  war.  He 
explains  the  difficulty  which  he  had  in  resisting 
this  powerful  militaristic  pressure  in  the  crisis  of 
1867,  in  1875,  and  how  he  made  use  of  this  pres- 
sure to  overcome  the  resistance  of  the  King  and  the 
peace  forces  of  Germany  in  order  to  plunge  the 
country  into  war  with  Austria  in  1866  and  with 
France  in  1870.  Nevertheless,  he  adds,  it  con- 
stitutes a  grave  danger  for  the  nation : 

It  is  natural  that  in  the  staff  of  the  army  not  only 
younger  active  officers,  but  likewise  experienced 
strategists,  should  feel  the  need  of  turning  to  account 
the  efficiency  of  the  troops  led  by  them,  and  their 
own  capacity  to  lead,  and  of  making  them  prominent 
in  history.  It  would  be  a  matter  of  regret  if  this 
effect  of  the  military  spirit  did  not  exist  in  the  army ; 
the  task  of  keeping  its  results  within  such  limits  as 
the  nations'  need  of  peace  can  justly  claim  is  the  duty 
of  the  political,  not  the  military,  heads  of  the  State. 

That  at  the  time  of  the  Luxemburg  question,  during 
the  crisis  of  1875  .  .  .  and  even  down  to  the  most 
recent  times,  the  staff  and  its  leaders  have  allowed 
themselves  to  be  led  astray  and  to  endanger  peace, 
lies  in  the  very  spirit  of  the  institution.  .  .  .  ^ 

The  connection  between  the  ideas  in  the  minds 
of  men  and  their  social  and  political  institutions 

I  Bismarck,  His  Reflections  and  Reminiscences,  vol.  ii.,  chapter 
xxii.,  p.  102. 


Prussian  Conception  of  the  State  249 

has  suggested  a  definition  of  the  miHtarist  as  one 
who  beHeves  that  society  is  founded  on  force,  and 
that  the  basis  of  civilization  is  the  soldier;  while 
the  civilist  believes  that  society  is  founded  upon 
co-operation  and  justice,  and  that  the  basis  of 
civilization  is  the  citizen. 

In  autocratic  countries  the  conservative  parties 
are  invariably  militaristic,  since  they  must  rely 
upon  military  force  to  maintain  their  positions 
against  the  rising  democratic  and  socialistic  move- 
ments which  threaten  to  undermine  their  privi- 
leges. This  has  been  especially  true  in  Germany 
and  Russia,  where  the  ruling  classes  have  relied 
upon  a  large  standing  army  as  their  chief  de- 
fence against  what  they  regard  as  the  disinte- 
grating forces  of  the  social  order.  On  the  other 
hand  an  absolute  government  is  necessary  for 
a  militant  state  if  the  army  is  to  be  kept  at  the 
highest  pitch  of  efficiency  and  preparation  for 
war.  Give  us  a  King  or  Give  us  Peace  is  the 
title  of  a  book  by  Guesde,  a  member  of  the  French 
Ministry  during  the  war,  which  demonstrates 
the  fundamental  opposition  between  a  republican 
form  of  government  and  a  warlike  national  policy. 

The  philosophy  of  force  has  separated  the  idea 
of  the  State  from  the  conception  of  the  highest 
welfare  of  the  people,  and  has  erected  the  State 
into  a  new  kind  of  national  god  to  which  human 
sacrifices  must  be  made.  The  abstract  ideal  of 
the  State  is  a  necessary  element  of  the  philosophy 
of  force,  because  the  sacrifice  of  the  community  for 


250    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

the  sake  of  the  community  would  be  too  obviously 
a  contradiction  in  terms.  Thus,  von  Treitschke, 
who  has  been  the  chief  exponent  in  Germany  of 
Bodin's  doctrine  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
State,  says : 

War  is  elevating,  because  the  individual  disappears 
before  the  great  conception  of  the  State.  .  .  .  The 
highest  moral  duty  of  the  State  is  to  increase  its 
power.  The  individual  must  sacrifice  himself  for  the 
higher  community  of  which  he  is  a  member;  but  the 
State  is  itself  the  highest  conception  in  the  wider 
community  of  man,  and  therefore  the  duty  of  self- 
annihilation  does  not  enter  into  the  case.  The 
Christian  duty  of  sacrifice  for  something  higher  does 
not  exist  for  the  State,  for  there  is  nothing  higher  than 
it  in  the  world's  history;  consequently  it  cannot 
sacrifice  itself  to  something  higher.  When  a  State 
sees  its  downfall  staring  it  in  the  face,  we  applaud 
if  it  succumbs  sword  in  hand.  A  sacrifice  made  to 
an  alien  nation  is  not  only  immoral,  but  contradicts 
the  idea  of  self-preservation,  which  is  the  highest 
ideal  of  a  State.  ^ 

In  England,  Spencer  Wilkinson,  Chichele  Pro- 
fessor of  Military  History  in  Oxford  University, 
starts  from  the  same  principle  to  prove  that  the 
abandonment  of  force  as  between  nations  is 
permanently  impossible.     He  writes^: 

.  .  .  The  employment  of  force  for  the  maintenance 
of  rights  is  the  foundation  of  all  civilized  hirnian  life, 

'Treitschke,  Politik,  vol.  i.,  §3. 

»  Britain  at  Bay,  Constable  &  Co.,  London. 


Nationalism  and  Imperialism       251 

for  it  is  the  fundamental  function  of  the  State,  and 
apart  from  the  State  there  is  no  civilization,  no  life 
worth  living.  The  mark  of  the  State  is  sovereignty 
or  the  identification  of  force  and  right,  and  the  measure 
of  the  protection  is  furnished  by  the  completeness  of 
this  identification. 

The  fine  flower  of  nationality,  which  has  been 
defined  by  writers  like  Renan'  and  J.  S.  Mill' 
as  a  unity  of  ideals  based  upon  common  sympathies 
and  the  consciousness  of  common  experiences, 
has  been  distorted  and  debased  by  the  philosophy 
of  force  into  a  spurious  Colonialism  on  the  one 
hand  and  Imperialism  on  the  other.  In  tracing 
the  causes  of  the  success  of  the  distorted  "social 
Darwinism"  we  have  seen  how  it  has  served  as 
the  scientific  defence  for  Imperialism,  and  how 
the  idea  of  "the  struggle  for  existence"  and  the 
"survival  of  the  fittest"  has  been  magnified  to 
the  immense  scale  of  the  life  struggle  between 
rival  empires.  J.  A.  Hobson,  who  has  given  the 
subject  the  most  scientific  study,  has  traced  the 
distortion  of  nationalism  by  the  philosophy  of 
force  as  follows : 

Nationalism  is  a  plain  highway  to  international-.  *  » 
ism,  and  if  it  manifests  diversions  we  may  well  sus- 
pect a  perversion  of  its  nature  and  its  purpose.  Such 
a  perversion  is  Imperialism,  in  which  nations,  tres- 
passing beyond  the  limits  of  facile  assimilation, 
transform    the    wholesome    stimulative    rivalry    of 

'  Quest-ce  qu'une  nation? 

'  Representative  Government,  chapter  xvi. 


252    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

various  national  types  into  the  cut-throat  struggle  of 
competing  empires. 

-  Not  only  does  aggressive  Imperialism  defeat  the 
movement  towards  internationalism  by  fostering  ani- 
mosities between  competing  empires :  its  attack  upon 
the  liberties  and  the  existence  of  weaker  or  lower  races 
stimulates  in  them  a  corresponding  excess  of  national 

I  self-consciousness.  A  nationahsm  that  bristles  with 
resentment  and  is  all  astrain  with  the  passion  of  self- 
defence  is  only  less  perverted  from  its  natural  genius 
than  the  nationalism  which  glows  with  the  animus 
of  greed  and  self-aggrandizement  at  the  expense  of 
others.  .  .  . 

The  new  policy  has  exercised  the  most  notable 
and  formidable  influence  upon  the  conscious  state- 
craft of  the  nations  which  indulge  in  it.  While  pro- 
ducing for  popular  consumption  doctrines  of  national 
destiny,  and  imperial  missions  of  civiUzation,  con- 
tradictory in  their  true  import,  but  subsidiary  to  one 
another  as  supports  of  popular  ImperiaHsm,  it  has 
evolved  a  calculating,  greedy  type  of  Machiavellianism 
entitled  "  real-politik  "  in  Germany,  where  it  was  made, 
which  has  remodelled  the  whole  art  of  diplomacy  and 
has  erected  national  aggrandizement  without  pity  or 
scruple  as  the  conscious  motive  force  of  foreign  policy. 
Earth  hunger  and  the  scramble  for  markets  are 
responsible  for  the  openly  avowed  repudiation  of 
treaty  obligations  which  Germany,  Russia,  and 
England  have  not  scrupled  to  defend.  The  sliding 
scale  of  diplomatic  language,  hinterland,  sphere  of 
interests,  sphere  of  influence,  paramountcy,  suzerainty, 
protectorate,  veiled  or  open,  leading  up  to  acts  of 
forcible  seizure  or  annexation  which  sometimes 
continue  to  be  hidden  under  "lease,"  "rectification  of 


Imperialism  and  Democracy      253 

frontier,"  "concession,"  and  the  like,  is  the  invention 
and  expression  of  this  cynical  spirit  of  Imperialism. 
While  Germany  and  Russia  have  perhaps  been  more 
open  in  their  professed  adoption  of  the  material  gain 
of  their  country  as  the  sole  criterion  of  public  conduct, 
other  nations  have  not  been  slow  to  accept  the 
standard.  Though  the  conduct  of  nations  in  dealing 
with  one  another  has  commonly  been  determined 
at  all  times  by  selfish  and  short-sighted  considerations, 
the  conscious,  deliberate  adoption  of  this  standard 
at  an  age  when  the  intercourse  of  nations  and  their 
interdependence  for  all  essentials  of  human  life  grow 
ever  closer,  is  a  retrograde  step  fraught  with  grave 
perils  to  the  cause  of  civilization.^ 

The  most  serious  efTect  of  Imperialism  is  its 
demoralizing  influence  upon  the  ethics  and  social 
philosophy  of  the  nations  which  embark  upon  an 
Imperialistic  career.^  This  is  especially  true  of 
democratic  nations.  The  effect  of  the  subjuga- 
tion of  the  Philippines  upon  the  democracy  of 
America  can  be  clearly  traced  in  the  strengthening 
of  the  forces  of  reaction  and  militarism.  ^  The 
improvements  which  have  resulted  from  the 
American  occupation  are  frequently  cited  by  those 

'  Imperialism:  A  Study,  p.  8. 

"J.  M.  Robertson  in  The  Evolution  of  States  (Putnam,  1913) 
traces  clearly  the  effect  of  Imperialism  in  lowering  the  standard 
of  ethics  and  weakening  the  total  strength  of  society  in  Rome 
(pp.  21-25),  in  Greece  (pp.  50-52),  and  in  the  Florentine  Republic 
(p.  249). 

3  See  Norman  Angell,  America  and  the  World-State,  chap,  ii., 
part  ii.  (Putnam  1915),  "A  Retrospect  of  American  Patriot- 
ism," for  illustrations  of  the  effect  of  the  subjugation  of  the 
Philippines  in  strengthening  militarism  in  America. 


254    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

who  believe  in  the  value  of  conquest  as  reasons 
why  the  United  States  should  "clean  up"  Mexico 
and  neighbouring  territory  subject  to  periodic  re- 
volution. Among  the  imperialists  in  America  the 
belief  is  widely  held  that  "might  makes  right," 
and  it  is  significant  that  the  democratic  and 
conservative  political  forces  have  taken  up  posi- 
tions for  and  against  Philippine  independence. 
In  the  same  way  the  Tories  in  England  bitterly 
opposed  the  policy  of  the  Liberals  in  "unconquer- 
ing"  British  colonies  and  their  action  in  acknow- 
ledging the  futility  of  force  by  granting  Home 
Rule  to  South  Africa  and  Ireland.  For  genera- 
tions the  belief  in  the  philosophy  of  force  made 
necessary  by  the  domination  of  Ireland  has  dis- 
torted the  political  theories  and  the  social  structure 
of  England,  and  the  same  effect,  though  not  as  yet 
in  so  critical  a  measure,  follows  from  the  forcible 
domination  of  Egypt  and  India.  In  Germany, 
France,  Russia,  and  Japan  the  forces  of  militarism 
and  Imperialism  are  indissolubly  joined  together. 
The  classic  diplomacy  of  the  nations  is  based 
upon  the  philosophy  of  force,  with  its  assumption 
of  the  essential  rivalry  between  nations  rather  than 
the  harmony  of  their  interests.  The  orthodox 
diplomacy  of  the  European  nations  especially  is 
intimately  connected  with  the  ideas  of  autocracy, 
and  is  usually  the  last  branch  of  the  government  to 
be  subjected  to  democratic  control.  The  diplo- 
matic service  of  most  countries  is  still  the  preserve 
of  the  aristocratic  classes  and  the  character  of 


Force  and  Orthodox  Diplomacy   255 

international  diplomacy  is  greatly  influenced  by 
this  fact.  Since  it  is  assumed  that  the  interests  of 
nations  are  mutually  antagonistic  and  that  the  ad-  • 
vantage  of  the  one  can  be  secured  only  at  the  cost 
of  another,  the  use  of  force  and  the  threat  of  force 
are  the  chief  instruments  of  the  diplomat's  power. 
''In  diplomacy  force  is  always  a  factor,"  says 
Admiral  Mahan";  and  Major  Stewart  L.  Murray 
in  his  book,='  to  which  Lord  Roberts  has  written 
a  laudatory  preface,  has  explained  the  relation 
between  diplomacy  and  force  as  follows : 

The  policies  of  the  various  States  must,  therefore, 
be  regarded  as  in  a  perpetual  state  of  conflict,  more 
or  less  concealed,  and  requiring  perpetual  give-and- 
take  adjustments  by  negotiation.  These  perpetual 
negotiations  are  conducted  by  the  diplomatic  services 
of  each  country,  which  are  thus  occupied  in  ceaseless 
efforts  to  preserve  peace.  But  if  a  special  conflict 
of  policies  cannot  be  settled  by  negotiation,  if  one 
nation  refuses  in  this  matter  to  compromise,  then, 
unless  one  nation  gives  way  through  fear,  because  it  is 
not  strong  enough  or  is  not  ready  enough,  there  re- 
mains nothing  except  to  resort  to  force,  to  war. 
Every  negotiation,  therefore,  implies  in  itself  that  the 
pen  is  held  in  one  hand  and  the  sword  in  the  other.  .  .  . 

The  foreign  commercial  policies  of  nearly  all 
nations  are  based  upon  the  idea  of  mutual  antag- 

'  "The  Place  of  Force  in  International  Relations,"  North 
American  Review,  January,  1912,  p.  34. 

^  The  Future  Peace  oj  the  Anglo-Saxons,  London,  Watts  &  Co., 
p.  19. 


256    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

onism  instead  of  interdependence,  and  find  their 
sanctions  in  the  philosophy  of  force.  Mr.  Henry 
C.  Emery,  Professor  of  Economics  at  Yale  Uni- 
versity has  traced  the  influence  of  the  Darwinian 
theory  upon  the  modern  commercial  policies  of 
nations  in  a  lecture  published  by  the  War  De- 
partment for  distribution  in  connection  with  the 
educational  work  of  the  army,  in  which  he  said: 

The  full  significance  of  the  Darwinian  theory  of  the 
formation  of  species  through  natural  selection  based 
on  a  struggle  for  existence,  was  not  at  first  appreciated 
so  far  as  its  bearing  on  the  history  of  human  societies 
was  concerned.  When,  however,  national  antagon- 
isms once  more  came  to  make  themselves  consciously 
felt  it  was  found  now  that  our  conceptions  regarding 
the  problem  of  race  struggle  took  on  an  entirely  new 
aspect.  Here  was  a  scientific  theory  ready  at  hand 
to  give  a  profound  philosophic  basis  to  a  nationalistic 
conception  of  history,  both  past  and  future,  which  the 
writers  of  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  sup- 
posed they  had  disposed  of  forever.  .  .  .  History 
has  been  largely  rewritten  in  the  light  of  this  new 
philosophy,  and  more  and  more  has  the  economic 
element  come  to  be  emphasized  as  the  determining 
factor  in  the  history  of  national  struggles.  .  .  . 

I  have  referred  to  the  early  period  of  mercantilism, 
when  every  weapon  of  a  nation  was  utilized  to  advance 
its  own  interests  at  the  expense  of  rivals.  .  .  .  The 
last  twenty-five  years  has  seen  the  development  of  a 
neomercantilism,  which,  although  more  enlightened  in 
detail  than  the  commercial  policy  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  still  takes  as  its  starting 


Darwinism  and  Neomercantilism    257 

point  the  rivalry  between  nations  rather  than  the 
harmony  of  their  interests,  and  uses,  or  stands  pre- 
pared to  use,  the  weapons  of  that  earlier  period.  .  .  . 
These  weapons  were  various,  including  protective 
tariffs,  prohibition  and  bounties  on  exports  and 
imports  as  the  occasion  might  demand,  commercial 
treaties,  the  arts  of  diplomacy,  and  finally  war.^ 

Militarism  is  directly  related  to  protectionism 
in  several  ways.  A  nation  which  carries  on  fre- 
quent wars  with  other  nations  must  seek  to  be 
self-sufficing  and  to  produce  itself  all  the  commodi- 
ties needful  for  carrying  on  its  national  life.  This 
is  the  chief  argument  used  against  reducing  the 
duties  on  agricultural  products  in  Germany,  an 
essentially  industrial  nation,  where  the  duties 
on  foodstiiffs  add  greatly  to  the  cost  of  living  and 
hold  back  the  economic  development  of  the  nation. 
On  the  other  hand  the  increasing  cost  of  modern 
armaments  exerts  a  constant  pressure  towards 
indirect  taxation  and  tends  to  maintain  customs 
duties  which  will  yield  a  high  revenue  where 
these  already  exist,  or  to  compel  their  establish- 
ment by  free  trade  countries.  The  protectionist 
measures  taken  by  England  to  meet  the  increased 
financial  burden  due  to  the  war  illustrate  this 
process.  Thus  the  entire  economic  life  is  strained 
and  warped  on  account  of  the  philosophy  of  force. 
Henry  George  has  clearly  stated  the  relation  of 
force  to  international  trade  as  follows: 

^  Some  Economic  Aspects  of  War,  1914,  Washington  Govern- 
ment Printing  OflSce,  p.  7. 

17 


258    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

Trade  does  not  require  force;  free  trade  consists 
simply  in  letting  people  buy  and  sell  as  they  want  to 
buy  and  sell.  It  is  protection  that  requires  force, 
for  it  consists  in  preventing  people  from  doing  what 
they  want  to  do.  Protective  tariffs  are  as  much  appli- 
cations of  force  as  are  blockading  squadrons,  and  their 
object  is  the  same — to  prevent  trade.  ^ 

More  recently,  Eduard  Bernstein  has  pointed 
out  the  connection  of  the  current  economic  theories 
with  the  philosophy  of  force.  Discussing  the 
reasons  for  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  modern 
economic  interdependence  of  nations  to  prevent 
war,  in  the  June,  19 15,  number  of  Die  Friedens- 
warte,  he  says : 

Anyone  who  reads  the  literature  of  the  militarist 
Imperialism  of  the  day  will  constantly  discover  its 
intimate  connection  with  protectionist  theories;  and 
its  strong  influence  on  European  thought  is  increased 
by  the  fact  that  there  remains  only  a  small  minority  of 
political  thinkers  familiar  with  the  true  doctrine  of 
Free  Trade  and  able  to  appreciate  its  far-reaching 
effects  on  international  relations.  Those  who  do  not 
adopt  the  theory  of  protection,  adopt  an  eclecticism 
in  economics  which  lacks  all  theoretical  foundation, 
and  is,  therefore,  defenceless  against  the  arguments  of 
the  imperialists.  That  is  how  it  has  come  about  that 
in  the  age  of  the  most  fully  developed  world  commerce, 
a  world  war  is  raging,  and  the  peoples  engaged  in  it 
are  roused  to  a  degree  of  hatred  and  bitterness  un- 

*  Henry  George,  Protection  or  Free  Trade  ?  chapter  vi. 


Force  and  a  Competitive  Civilization  259 

known  In  times  when  no  sort  of  close  contact  between 
them  existed.  This  explains  why  the  mighty  develop- 
ment of  commercial,  literary,  and  personal  intercourse 
did  not  fulfil  the  expectation  that  it  would  prove  a 
power  for  peace.  ^ 

The  belief  that  society  is  based  upon  force  is 
widespread  among  the  members  of  the  legal 
profession,  who  come  in  contact  chiefly  with 
abnormal  social  phenomena  and  with  the  mechan- 
ism by  which  society  deals  with  those  who  refuse 
to  co-operate.  The  Roman  Law,  in  which  author- 
ity is  derived  from  above,  is  especially  favourable 
to  the  development  of  the  militaristic  philosophy. 
But  law  is  fundamentally  a  question  of  determining 
under  what  conditions  the  force  of  a  state  shall  be 
exercised  (conditions  which  are  defined  by  Magna 
Charta,  habeas  corpus^  Bill  of  Rights,  etc.),  and  the 
greatest  minds  in  the  legal  profession  have  always 
recognized  that  the  ultimate  sanction  and  the 
power  which  directs  these  conditions  for  the  use 
of  force  is  public  opinion.  ^  The  development  of 
popular  government  is  the  story  of  the  modifica- 
tion of  the  conditions  under  which  force  is  used. 
For  a  democracy  in  which  authority  is  derived  from 
below,  and  which  can  rest  securely  only  upon 
foundations  of  justice,  nothing  is  more  important 
than  a  clear  understanding  of  the  relative  r61es 

'  Quoted  in  War  and  Peace,  July,  19 15. 

'  David  Jayne  Hill's  World  Organization  as  Affected  by  the  Nct- 
ture  of  the  Modern  State,  is  an  illiiminating  study  of  force  as  a 
factor  in  political  relations. 


26o    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

of  ideas  and  force — of  the  intellectual  and  the 
physiological  struggle — in  civilization. 

The  essential  function  of  business  as  a  co- 
operative link  between  an  existing  demand  and  a 
possible  source  of  supply,  and  its  basis  in  mutual 
confidence  and  the  observance  of  contract  is  often 
overshadowed  in  the  minds  of  business  men  by 
the  more  obvious  elements  of  competition.  The 
English  author  of  a  recent  book  states  the  philo- 
sophy of  force  for  the  business  world  as  follows: 

You  cannot  abolish  war  from  a  competitive  system 
of  civilization:  competition  is  the  root-basis  of  the 
system  of  civilization  and  competition  is  war.  When 
a  business  man  crushes  a  trade  rival  from  the  market 
by  cut  prices,  there  is  exactly  the  same  process  at 
work  as  when  a  business  nation  crushes  a  trade  rival 
by  physical  force.  The  means  vary  but  the  end  in 
view  and  the  ethical  principles  in  question  are  identical. 
In  both  cases  the  weaker  goes  to  the  wall;  in  both 
cases  it  is  woe  to  the  vanquished.  ^ 

Monopoly  in  business  reproduces  the  principle 
of  compulsory  co-operation  of  the  philosophy  of 
force.  Admiral  Mahan^  has  stated  the  analogy 
between  industrial  and  political  organization 
thus: 

The  force  of  concentrated  capital  is  as  real  and 
material  as  the  force  of  an  organized  army,  and  it  has 
the  same  advantage  over  a  multitude  of  unorganized 

'  Rifleman,  The  Struggle  for  Bread,  p.  209. 
'  "The   Place   of  Force  in   International  Relations,"  North 
American  Review,  January,  1912. 


Violence  in  Industrial  Relations    261 

competitors  that  an  army  has  over  a  mob.  At  times, 
well  within  memory,  the  contest  has  narrowed  down 
to  a  conflict  almost  personal,  at  times  quite  personal, 
between  concentrated  financial  powers,  ending  at 
times  in  a  disabling  reverse  or  a  disastrous  overthrow 
to  one  or  the  other.  As  the  disadvantage  of  such 
contests  has  become  apparent  to  the  greater  com- 
petitors, there  has  succeeded  a  disposition  to  co- 
operation, corresponding  to  alliance  between  political 
entities  for  their  mutual  benefit. 

In  recent  years  the  philosophy  of  force  has 
become  the  dominant  philosophy  in  the  relations 
between  capital  and  labour.  ^  Revolutionary  syndi- 
calism, sabotage  and  "direct  action,"  dynamite  me- 
thods of  trade-unionism  and  machine-gun  methods 
of  mine  owners,  epidemics  of  strikes  and  lockouts, 
are  all  manifestations  of  the  belief  in  the  effective- 
ness of  force  to  solve  industrial  problems  on  the 
basis  of  compulsory  co-operation. 

Socialism,  with  its  splendid  ideals  of  the  co- 
operative commonwealth  and  the  rational  or- 
ganization of  society,  has  suffered  severely  from 
the  distortion  due  to  the  philosophy  of  force, 
especially  in  its  early  period.  Its  chief  error  con- 
sists in  the  failure  to  see  (i)  that  the  basis  of  human 
society,  now  as  from  the  beginning,  is  that  mutual 
aid  and   solidarity  of   the  human   race  which   it 

*  See  Violence  and  the  Labour  Movement,  by  Robert  Hunter 
(Macmillan,  1914),  for  a  survey  of  anarchism  and  syndicalism  in 
relation  to  labour,  and  for  a  study  of  the  place  of  force  in  modern 
industrial  relations.  See  also,  John  Graham  Brooks,  American 
Syndicalism:  The  I.  W.  W.  (Macmillan,  New  York,  19 13). 


262    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

is  seeking  to  establish  and  (2)  that  the  present 
"class  struggle"  is  only  a  distortion  of  the  social 
structure  from  its  true  character,  which  has  come 
about  as  the  result  of  false  ideas  in  regard  to  the 
advantages  to  be  gained  from  the  exploitation  of 
man  by  man. 

Originating  in  a  highly  militarized  nation  and 
revolting  against  militarism,  Socialism  has  never- 
theless been  profoundly  influenced  by  the  mili- 
taristic type  of  society.  Probably  very  few 
Socialists  at  the  present  time  believe  in  the 
efficacy  of  force  as  an  instrument  for  social  pro- 
gress, but  in  the  popular  mind  at  least,  the  empha- 
sis of  Socialism  on  the  class  struggle  and  its  early 
advocacy  of  violent  methods  have  greatly  hindered 
the  spread  of  the  social  truth  which  formed  its 
strength.  "The  Communists  disdain  to  conceal 
their  views  and  aims"  wrote  Marx  and  Engels  in 
the  Communist  Manifesto  in  1848.  "They  openly 
declare  that  their  ends  can  be  obtained  only  by  the 
forcible  overthrow  of  all  existing  social  conditions." 
This  standpoint,  though  long  since  passed  in  the 
development  of  modern  Socialism,  still  represents 
the  movement  in  the  minds  of  its  opponents  and 
keeps  many  from  examining  into  its  social  philo- 
sophy. On  the  other  hand,  much  of  the  opposi- 
tion to  Socialism  is  based  on  the  individualistic 
theory  of  "social  Darwinism"  that  the  organiza- 

,  tion  of  society  on  co-operative  principles  would 
do  away  with  competition  and  struggle  and  would 

*  thus  lead  to  social  stagnation  and  disaster. 


Militarism  and  the  Rise  of  Woman  263 

The  fine  spirit  of  international  brotherhood  of 
Socialism  has  been  largely  nullified  by  the  belief 
in  the  efllicacy  of  military  force  to  achieve  social 
and  political  results.  Thus  Hyndman  and  other 
leaders  of  the  British  Socialist  Party  have  sup- 
ported the  great  war  which  began  in  19 14  in  order 
to  "crush  German  militarism,"  while  the  Ger- 
man Social  Democrats  have  supported  the  same 
war  for  the  purpose  of  "crushing  the  Russian 
autocracy." 

The  rise  of  woman,  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
spiritual,  intellectual,  political  and  economic 
movements  in  the  history  of  the  world,  is  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  question  of  the  place 
of  force  in  civilization.  In  so  far  as  it  succeeds,  it 
results  from  a  diminution  in  the  role  of  physical 
force  in  human  society.  It  is  possible  to  arrange 
the  European  nations  in  the  order  of  the  position 
which  is  accorded  to  woman  and  this  order  corre- 
sponds closely  with  the  decline  in  the  role  of 
physical  force,  and  the  stage  of  civilization  which 
has  been  attained.  Beginning  with  Turkey  where 
women  have  almost  no  rights  and  where  the  whole 
history  has  been  a  catalog  of  battles,  we  can  trace 
this  parallelism  as  we  ascend  to,  say,  the  Scandina- 
vian countries,  Denmark,  Norway,  Sweden,  and 
Finland,  where  women  have  almost  complete 
political  and  economic  equality  with  men,  where 
the  role  of  physical  force  reaches  a  minimum,  and 
where,  by  tests  of  low  percentage  of  illiteracy, 


264    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

low  infant  mortality,  absence  of  tuberculosis  and 
alcoholism,  general  well-being  and  high  standards 
of  art,  literature,  music,  and  science,  we  reach  the 
most  perfect  forms  of  social  organization  and  the 
highest  types  of  modern  civilization. 

In  countries  which,  like  Germany,  are  in  a 
transition  state  from  autocratic  government  to 
democracy,  the  forces  of  reaction — the  militarists, 
imperialists,  Pan-Germans,  and  conservatives  of 
all  kinds — are  found  bitterly  opposing  the  enfran- 
chisement of  woman,  while  all  the  liberal  political 
forces — Social  Democrats,  Progressive  Peoples' 
Party,  etc. — include  woman  suffrage  as  an  essential 
part  of  their  democratic  programs. 

The  same  division  is  found  in  England  where 
women  are  allowed  to  vote  in  municipal  affairs 
and  county  affairs,  but  are  debarred  from  partici- 
pation in  national  and  imperial  policies  because,  as 
the  imperialists  claim,  women  cannot  understand 
imperial  affairs.  In  reality  this  means  that  the 
imperialists  fear  that  the  social  intmtions  of 
women  would  revolt  at  the  applications  of  the 
philosophy  of  force  to  imperial  ambitions,  and 
this  fear  is  probably  justified.  In  this  connection 
it  is  instructive  to  note  the  general  sense  of  moral 
shock  with  which  the  distortion  of  the  woman's 
movement  by  the  philosophy  of  force,  as  revealed 
in  the  relatively  harmless  and  unimportant  out- 
break of  militancy  upon  the  part  of  the  English 
suffragettes,  was  received  all  over  the  civilized 
world.     When  rightly  understood,  this  sense  of 


The  Failure  of  Frightfulness      265 

moral  shock  is  a  striking  testimony  to  the  imiversal 
faith  of  mankind  in  the  fundamental  incompati- 
bility of  the  true  social  instincts  of  woman  and 
the  false  methods  of  force  and  violence  which 
have  so  often  dominated  the  action  of  men. 

The  essential  opposition  between  militarism* 
and  the  rise  of  woman  has  been  summed  up  by 
Grace  Isabel  Colbron,  in  The  Public,  as  follows : 

It  is  this  spirit  of  militarism,  the  glorification  of 
brute  force,  and  this  alone,  that  has  kept  woman  in 
political,  legal,  and  economic  bondage  throughout 
the  ages;  and  there  is  still  enough  of  it  remaining  in 
our  enlightened  twentieth  century  to  make  the  idea 
of  woman's  participation  in  public  office  and  public 
life  a  thing  to  be  scoffed  at  by  the  majority,  ridiculed 
and  opposed. 

It  was  not  any  manifestation  of  superiority  of  the 
masculine  mind  that  first  threw  the  chains  of  political 
serfhood  around  one-half  of  humanity ;  it  was  merely 
the  fact  that  in  the  dark  ages  of  the  world's  history, 
brute  force,  that  is,  militarism  in  one  or  another 
form,  reigned  supreme.  Where  brute  force  was 
lord,  woman  with  her  differently  constituted  muscular 
development  was  considered  an  inferior  being  simply 
because  she  did  not  bear  arms. 

The  philosophy  of  force  has  been  drawn  into 
the  service  of  race  prejudice  and  has  been  con- 
sidered as  the  justification  for  innumerable  racial 

'  See  also  Militarism  v.  Feminism;  an  Enquiry  and  a  Policy 
Demonstrating  that  Militarism  Involves  the  Subjection  of  Women, 
published  by  George  Allen  &  Unwin,  Ltd.,  Ruskin^House,  London. 


266    Force  and  the  Social  Structure 

wars,  feuds,  and  lynchings.  It  is  the  basis  for 
those  theories  of  punishment,  now  happily  obsolete 
except  in  the  martial  law  of  some  nations,  that 
rely  upon  the  frequent  use  of  the  death  penalty 
and  methods  of  terrorism  to  enforce  obedience  to 
laws.  The  belief  in  the  effectiveness  of  force 
still  holds  back  the  reform  of  the  penal  system, 
keeping  it  upon  the  old  basis  of  revenge  and 
punishment,  instead  of  bringing  it  into  accord  with 
the  modern  ideas  of  reformation.  The  use  of 
force  in  corporal  punishment  in  the  educational 
systems  of  many  countries  is  due  to  the  same 
mistaken  notion  of  its  effectiveness,  this  time  as  an 
intellectual  discipline. 

The  greatest  distortion  of  all,  however,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  ethics  of  individual  conduct.  Among 
large  sections  of  the  intellectual  classes,  and 
especially  among  the  aristocratic  circles  in  the 
European  universities,  the  ethics  of  Christianity 
have  been  replaced  by  the  philosophy  of  force  as  a 
practical  moral  code.  It  is  only  when  transferred 
to  the  domain  of  the  personal  life,  that  we  realize 
fully  the  blasphemous  character  of  the  philosophy 
of  force ;  but  after  all  Nietzsche  has  simply  carried 
out  the  philosophy  of  force  to  its  logical  conclusion 
as  a  standard  of  individual  morality.  Thus  he 
says  in  the  Antichrist: 

Ye  have  heard  how  in  old  times  it  was  said,  Blessed 
are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth.  But 
I  say  unto  you,  Blessed  are  the  valiant,  for  they  shall 
make  the  earth  their  throne. 


Struggle  and  Individual  Ethics    267 

And  ye  have  heard  them  say,  Blessed  are  the  poor 
in  spirit.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Blessed  are  the  great 
in  soul,  for  they  shall  enter  into  Valhalla. 

And  ye  have  heard  men  say,  Blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers. But  I  say  unto  you.  Blessed  are  the  war- 
makers,  for  they  shall  be  called,  if  not  the  children  of 
Jehovah,  the  children  of  Odin,  who  is  greater  than 
Jehovah. 

Whatever  else  we  may  say  of  Nietzsche,  we 
must  at  least  admit  that  he  is  intellectually  honest 
in  carrying  out  the  principle  of,  struggle  to  its 
logical  conclusions.     As  Professor  Figgis  says: 

Nietzsche  deserves  the  gratitude  of  all  friends  of 
humanity  for  the  service  he  has  done,  in  showing 
that  the  whole  sphere  of  private  life  cannot  in  the 
long  run  be  different  from  the  ideals  accepted  in  public 
afEairs.^ 

And  Prof.  Philip  van  Ness  Myers  who  also 
recognizes  his  contribution  to  a  truer  social  philo- 
sophy adds: 

It  is  the  inconsistencies  and  hypocrisies  involved 
in  the  double  standard  of  national  and  individual  con- 
duct that  is  one  ground  of  Nietzsche's  bitter  attack 
on  the  ethics  of  Christendom.  Rightly  understood, 
Nietzsche's  work  is  a  reductio  ad  ahsurdum — a  classic 
satire  on  the  philosophy  of  force.  ^ 

*  Studies  of  Political  Thought  from  Gerson  to  Grotius,  1907,  p.  96. 
»  History  as  Past  Ethics,  Ginn  &  Company,  1913,  p.  380. 


CHAPTER  IX 

DARWIN'S  THEORY  OF  SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

THE  central  principle  of  Darwin's  theory  of 
human  progress,  is  found  in  mutual  aid  and 
the  moral  law.  ^  A  greater  contrast  can  hardly  be 
imagined  than  that  between  the  true  Darwinian 
theory  of  social  progress,  as  given  in  his  own  writ- 
ings, and  the  doctrines  of  the  philosophy  of  force 
which  we  have  examined  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
and  which  are  widely  believed  to  find  their  scienti- 
fic foundations  in  Darwin's  works. 

The  philosophy  of  force  finds  the  cause  of  the 
advance  of  civilization  in  the  elements  of  fear, 
collective  homicide,  and  the  struggle  of  one  part 
of  mankind  against  the  other — in  the  law  which  is 
claimed  to  run  through  human  society  as  well  as 
the  animal  world,  of  "Nature  red  in  tooth  and 
claw."  The  belief  in  this  distorted  social  Darwin- 
ism is  so  universal  that  it  comes  to  many  persons 
with  a  sense  of  shock  as  well  as  with  a  sense  of 
refreshment  of  the  spirit,  to  rediscover  Darwin's 

'Darwin's  theory  of  social  progress  is  contained  in  chapters 
iii.,  iv.,  v.,  and  xxi.  of  The  Descent  of  Man. 

268 


Rediscovery  of  Darwin's  Message  269 

true  message  and  to  learn  that  he  finds  the  cause 
of  the  advance  of  civilization  in  the  social  habits  of 
man,  in  co-operation  and  mutual  aid  for  the  struggle 
against  the  physical  universe,  and  in  the  moral  law. 
This  rediscovery  of  Darwin's  social  message,  if  it 
becomes  an  integral  part  of  the  intellectual  revo- 
lution, will  profoundly  modify  social  theories  and 
political  institutions  in  the  future,  for,  whereas 
the  "social  Darwinists"  in  the  past  have  founded 
their  philosophy  upon  the  forces  which  make  for 
social  disintegration  and  injustice,  Darwin  bases 
his  philosophy  of  social  progress  upon  the  forces 
that  make  for  social  organization  and  justice. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  before  beginning  the 
examination  of  Darwin's  social  theories,  that  both 
Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  the  co-discoverer  of  the 
theory  of  evolution,  and  Huxley,  who  is  usually 
considered  its  greatest  exponent,  agree  with 
Darwin  that  the  chief  cause  of  social  progress  and 
human  evolution  is  to  be  found  in  ethical  factors. 
We  have  already  noted  Huxley's  sharp  division 
between  social  evolution  and  natural  evolution  in 
Chapter  II.,  and  his  theory  of  social  progress  is 
summarized  in  the  following  quotation  from  his 
Romanes  lecture  ^ : 

Social  progress  means  a  checking  of  the  cosmic 
process  at  every  step  and  the  substitution  for  it  of 
another,  which  may  be  called  the  ethical  process;  the 
end  of  which  is  not  the  survival  of  those  who  may 
happen  to  be  the  fittest  in  respect  of  the  whole  of  the 

^  Evolution  and  Ethics,  pp.  81-83,  203. 


270  Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

conditions  which  obtain,  but  of  those  who  are  ethically 
best. 

As  I  have  already  urged,  the  practice  of  that  which 
is  ethically  best — what  we  call  goodness  or  virtue — 
involves  a  course  of  conduct  which,  in  all  respects,  is 
opposed  to  that  which  leads  to  success  in  the  cosmic 
struggle  for  existence.  In  place  of  ruthless  self- 
assertion  it  demands  self-restraint ;  in  place  of  thrust- 
ing aside,  or  treading  down  all  competitors,  it  requires 
that  the  individual  shall  not  merely  respect,  but  shall 
help  his  fellows ;  its  influence  is  directed,  not  so  much 
to  the  survival  of  the  fittest  as  to  the  fitting  of  as 
many  as  possible  to  survive.  It  repudiates  the  gladia- 
torial theory  of  existence.  It  demands  that  each  man 
who  enters  into  the  enjoyment  of  the  advantages  of  a 
polity  shall  be  mindful  of  his  debt  to  those  who  have 
laboriously  constructed  it ;  and  shall  take  heed  that  no 
act  of  his  weakens  the  fabric  in  which  he  has  been 
permitted  to  live.  Laws  and  moral  precepts  are 
directed  to  the  end  of  curbing  the  cosmic  process  and 
reminding  the  individual  of  his  duty  to  the  community, 
to  the  protection  and  influence  of  which  he  owes,  if  not 
existence  itself,  at  least  the  life  of  something  better 
than  a  brutal  savage. 

Let  us  understand,  once  for  all,  that  the  ethical 
progress  of  society  depends,  not  on  imitating  the  cos- 
mic process,  still  less  in  running  away  from  it,  but  in 
combating  it. 

The  theory  of  Wallace  is  substantially  the  same 
as  that  of  Huxley.  It  is  noteworthy  that  both 
Wallace  and  Huxley  emphasize  the  break  between 
the  cosmic  process  and  human  society,  so  that  their 


Social  Theories  of  Wallace  and  Huxley  271 

theory  of  social  progress,  Instead  of  being  an 
integral  part  of  the  theory  of  evolution,  marks 
a  distinct  development.  Both  attempt  in  some 
manner  to  bridge  the  gap  between  the  "ethical" 
man  and  the  "natural"  man,  and  the  attempt  of 
both  is  unsatisfactory.  In  order  to  find  some 
method  by  which  the  "natural"  man  may  evolve 
his  "unnatural"  world  of  ethics,  Dr.  Wallace 
seems  to  feel  the  need  of  some  deus  ex  machina  and, 
abandoning  his  scientific  basis  of  evolution,  is 
driven  to  suppose  some  "influx"  from  "the  un- 
seen universe  of  spirits"  to  solve  the  difficulty. 
Huxley  attempts  to  solve  the  problem  in  a  simpler 
way.  The  self-restraint  of  the  moral  world  arises 
from  factors  which  are  organic  in  the  natural  man. 
The  difficulty  of  this  solution  is  that  it  contradicts 
the  clear-cut  antithesis  between  the  natural  man 
and  social  man  which  is  so  vividly  emphasized  in 
Huxley's  writings,  and  this  constitutes  the  weak- 
ness of  Huxley's  whole  position. 

The  superiority  of  Darwin's  genius  is  shown  in 
the  fact  that  he  does  not  abandon  his  scientific 
basis  like  Wallace,  nor  does  he  fall  into  the  error  of 
self-contradiction  like  Huxley.  Darwin's  theory 
of  social  progress  is  an  integral  part  of  his  theory 
of  evolution.  There  is  no  discontinuity  in  the 
universal  sweep  of  his  great  cosmic  principle  from 
its  lowly  beginnings  in  the  realm  of  nature  to  its 
highest  development  in  the  moral  law,  to  which 
he  traces  the  progress  of  human  society  towards 
perfection. 


2^2   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

Darwin  rejects,  as  entirely  lacking  any  founda- 
tion in  scientific  evidence,  the  anthropological 
romance  of  the  pre-social  "natural"  man,  living 
in  a  state  of  continual  warfare  of  each  against  all, 
which  was  created  by  Hobbes  and  seems  to  have 
been  adopted  without  modification  by  Huxley. 
In  a  letter  to  John  Morley  written  by  Darwin  in 
1871,  he  says: 

I  do  not  think  there  is  any  evidence  that  man  ever 
existed  as  a  non-social  animal.^ 

On  the  contrary,  all  the  scientific  evidence  which 
we  possess  goes  to  show  that  not  only  primitive 
man  but  even  the  members  of  the  animal  kingdom 
who  constituted  the  immediate  ancestors  of  man 
were  social  beings.  Darwin  sums  up  the  evidence 
thus: 

Judging  from  the  habits  of  savages  and  of  the  greater 
number  of  the  Quadrumana,  primeval  men,  and  even 
their  ape-like  progenitors,  probably  lived  in  society.* 

Darwin  even  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  man 
has  probably  sprung  from  some  comparatively 
small  and  weak  species  like  the  chimpanzee  instead 
of  from  one  as  powerful  as  the  gorilla.  He  points 
out  what  an  immense  advantage  it  must  have 
been  to  man  to  have  descended  from  such  a 
comparatively  weak  creature,  since  it  would  have 

'  More  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  vol.  i,,  p.  327. 
'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  78. 


Primitive  Man  a  Social  Animal   273 

necessitated  development  of  social  qualities  which 
led  him  to  give  and  receive  aid  from  his  fellow- 
men: 

An  animal  possessing  great  size,  strength,  and 
ferocity,  and  which,  like  the  gorilla,  could  defend 
itself  from  all  enemies,  would  not  perhaps  have  become 
social ;  and  this  would  most  effectually  have  checked 
the  acquirement  of  the  higher  mental  qualities  such 
as  sympathy  and  the  love  of  his  fellows.^ 

He  proceeds  to  trace  the  manner  in  which  the 
social  instincts  and  mutual  aid  operate  as  survival 
factors,  leading  to  that  development  of  the  mental 
faculties  which  replaces  the  modification  of  bodily 
structure  as  the  most  effective  form  of  adaptation  ^ 
to  changed  conditions.  He  constantly  expresses 
the  importance  of  mutual  aid  among  even  primi- 
tive men,  of  whom  he  says : 

Even  at  a  remote  period  he  practised  some  division 
of  labour.^ 

Each  man  did  not  manufacture  his  own  flint  tools 
or  rude  pottery,  but  certain  individuals  appear  to  have 
devoted  themselves  to  such  work,  no  doubt  receiving 
in  exchange  the  produce  of  the  chase. ^ 

Kropotkin,  whose  survey  of  savage  life  in  all 
parts  of  the  globe  corroborates  Darwin's  concli}- 
sion,  sums  up  the  evidence  thus : 

^  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  79.  *  Idem,  p.  143. 

ildem,  p.  65. 

18 


274   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

Wherever  we  go  we  find  the  same  sociable  manners, 
the  same  spirit  of  solidarity.  And  when  we  endeavour 
to  penetrate  into  the  darkness  of  past  ages,  we  find  the 
same  tribal  life,  the  same  associations  of  men,  however 
primitive,  for  mutual  support.  Therefore  Darwin  was 
quite  right  when  he  saw  in  man's  social  qualities  the 
chief  factor  for  his  further  evolution,  and  Darwin's 
vulgarizers  are  entirely  wrong  when  they  maintain 
the  contrary.^ 

The  moral  sense,  according  to  Darwin's  theory, 
is  the  most  important  factor  in  social  evolution, 
because  it  is  the  basis  of  all  human  society.  The 
moral  sense  alone  makes  co-operative  effort  and 
the  division  of  labour  possible.  Mutual  aid  is  the 
chief  factor  of  social  progress,  and  indeed  of  all 
human  evolution,  since  man's  dominant  position 
in  the  world  depends  almost  entirely  upon  the 
.  fact  that  he  is  a  member  of  society.  Darwin 
traces  the  cause  of  this  dominance  as  follows : 

Man  in  the  rudest  state  in  which  he  now  exists  is 
the  most  dominant  animal  that  has  ever  appeared  on 
this  earth.  He  has  spread  more  widely  than  any 
other  highly  organized  form,  and  all  others  have 
yielded  before  him.     He  manifestly  owes  this  immense 

/  superiority  to  his  intellectual  faculties,  to  his  social 
habits,  which  lead  him  to  aid  and  defend  his  fellows, 
and  to  his  corporeal  structure.  .  .  .  The  intellectual 

'  powers  and  social  habits  of  man  are  of  paramount 
importance  to  him.  .  .  .^ 

'  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  p.  1 10. 
•  The  Descent  of  Man,  pp.  63-64. 


Social  Habits  Give  Man  Dominance   275 

The  intellectual  powers,  and  especially  articulate 
language,  on  which  his  wonderful  advancement  has 
mainly  depended,  have  been  developed  as  the  result 
of  his  social  habits.  The  advantages  of  his  cor- 
poreal structure,  especially  his  erect  position  and 
his  hands,  have  been  valuable  only  as  they  have 
been  directed  by  the  intellect,  so  that  man's 
dominant  position  in  the  world,  in  the  last  analysis, 
is  due  to  his  social  habits.  The  moral  law,  which 
is  based  on  these  social  habits,  and  is  the  cementing 
force  which  holds  society  together,  thus  becomes, 
in  the  true  Darwinian  theory,  the  central  and  most 
important  factor  of  social  evolution. 

As  soon  as  we  enter  the  social  domain  then,  the 
struggle  against  the  physical  environment  changes 
its  form.  Short-sighted  selfishness  tends  to  de- 
feat its  own  end  because  of  the  strife  which  it  en- 
genders, which  makes  co-operation  and  indeed  all 
society  impossible.  If  any  of  the  advantages  of 
association  are  lost  the  society  falls  to  a  lower 
plane  of  evolution  and  the  individual  who  is  a  part 
of  this  society  falls  with  it.     As  Darwin  says : 

Selfish  and  contentious  people  will  not  cohere,  and 
without  coherence  nothing  can  be  effected.  ^ 

Indeed,  an  enlightened  selfishness  would  now 
lead  a  member  of  society  to  do  many  things  which 
from  a  short-sighted  point  of  view  would  appear 
to  be  against  his  own  interest.  Darwin  describes 
how  selfishness  itself  may  lead  to  an  increase  of 

'  The  Descent  oj  Man,  p.  145. 


276   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

sympathy,  which  is  so  important  an  element 
among  the  social  instincts. 

With  mankind,  selfishness,  experience,  and  imi- 
tation probably  add  ...  to  the  power  of  sympathy ; 
for  we  are  led  by  the  hope  of  receiving  good  in  return 
to  perform  acts  of  sympathetic  kindness  to  others; 
and  sympathy  is  much  strengthened  by  habit.  In 
however  complex  a  manner  this  feeling  may  have 
originated,  as  it  is  one  of  high  importance  to  all  those 
animals  which  aid  and  defend  one  another,  it  will 
have  been  increased  through  natural  selection;  for 
those  communities  which  included  the  greatest 
number  of  the  most  sympathetic  members  would 
flourish  best,  and  rear  the  greatest  number  of 
offspring.  ^ 

When  we  enter  the  realm  of  social  evolution, 
therefore,  the  struggle  to  adapt  the  physical  uni- 
verse takes  on  a  new  aspect.  It  becomes  a  struggle 
of  societies  against  the  physical  environment,  in- 
stead of  individuals,  and  here  mutual  aid  rises  to 
the  rank  of  first  importance.  Darwin  describes  the 
process  by  which  the  small  strength  and  speed  of 
man,  his  want  of  natural  weapons,  etc.,  are  more 
than  counterbalanced,  firstly,  by  his  intellectual 
powers,  the  development  of  which  he  traces  chiefly 
to  the  social  habits  of  man ;  and 

secondly,  by  his  social  qualities,  which  lead  him 
to  give  and  receive  aid  from  his  fellowmen.  No 
country  in  the  world  abounds  in  a  greater  degree  with 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  122. 


The  Moral  Law  a  Survival  Factor  2']^ 

dangerous  beasts  than  Southern  Africa;  no  country 
presents  more  physical  hardships  than  the  Arctic 
regions;  yet  one  of  the  puniest  of  races,  that  of  the 
Bushman,  maintains  itself  in  Southern  Africa,  as  do 
the  dwarfed  Esquimaux  in  the  Arctic  regions.  '^ 

The  struggle  between  societies  replaced  the 
struggle  between  individuals  at  a  very  early 
stage,  and  the  advantage  gained  by  the  individual 
came  to  him  indirectly  through  the  benefit  to  the 
whole  community : 

Judging  from  the  habits  of  savages  and  of  the 
greater  number  of  the  Quadrumana,  primeval  men, 
and  even  their  ape-like  progenitors,  probably  lived  in 
society.  With  strictly  social  animals,  natural  selection 
sometimes  acts  on  the  individual,  through  the  preser- 
vation of  variations  which  are  beneficial  to  the  commu- 
nity. A  community  which  includes  a  large  number  of 
well-endowed  individuals  increases  in  number,  and  is 
victorious  over  other  less  favoured  ones,  even  although 
each  separate  member  gains  no  advantage  over  the 
others  of  the  same  community  ...  In  regard  to  cer- 
tain mental  powers  the  case  ...  is  wholly  different: 
for  these  faculties  have  been  chiefly,  or  even  exclu- 
sively, gained  for  the  benefit  of  the  community,  and 
the  individuals  thereof  have  at  the  same  time  gained 
an  advantage  indirectly.* 

In  Darwin's  theory,  however,  it  is  not,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  philosophy  of  force,  collective  homicide, 
which  plays  the  chief  role  in  this  struggle.     As 

'  The  Descent  0/  Man^  pp.  79-80.  » Idem,  p.  78. 


278   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

early  as  1864,  seven  years  before  he  published 
The  Descent  oj  Man,  Darwin  wrote  to  A.  R.  Wal- 
lace that 

the  struggle  between  the  races  of  man  depended  en- 
tirely upon  intellectual  and  moral  qualities.  ^ 

And  in  The  Descent  of  Man  he  repeatedly  empha- 
sizes the  importance  of  morality  as  a  group  sur- 
vival factor : 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  although  a  high 
♦standard  of  morality  gives  but  a  slight  or  no  advantage 
to  each  individual  man  and  his  children  over  the  other 
men  of  the  same  tribe,  yet  that  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  well-endowed  men  and  an  advancement  in 
the  standard  of  morality  will  certainly  give  an  immense 
advantage  to  one  tribe  over  another.  A  tribe  includ- 
ing many  members  who,  from  possessing  in  a  high 
degree  the  spirit  of  patriotism,  fidelity,  obedience, 
courage,  and  sympathy,  were  always  ready  to  aid  one 
another,  and  to  sacrifice  themselves  for  the  common 

*  good,  would  be  victorious  over  most  other  tribes; 
and  this  would  be  natural  selection.  At  all  times 
throughout  the  world  tribes  have  supplanted  other 
tribes;  and  as  morality  is  one  important  element  in 

•  their  success,  the  standard  of  morality  and  the  number 
of  well-endowed  men  will  thus  everywhere  tend  to  rise 
and  increase.' 

f 

Although  wars  of  extermination  may  play  a  r61e 
among  savage  tribes  too  ignorant  to  reaHze  the 

» Lije  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  p.  371. 
'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  148. 


True  Causes  of  Progress  279 

advantages  of  abandoning  destructive  competition 
in  favour  of  co-operation  and  alliance,  this  factor 
can  play  only  an  unimportant  role  among  civilized 
people : 

With  highly  civilized  nations  continued  progress 
depends  in  a  subordinate  degree  on  natural  selection; 
for  such  nations  do  not  supplant  and  exterminate 
one  another  as  do  savage  tribes.* 

The  true  causes  of  progress,  though  very  difficult 
to  determine,  are  to  be  found  in  intellectual  and 
moral  qualities,  according  to  Darwin: 

It  is  very  difficult  to  say  why  one  civilized  nation    ' 
rises,    becomes   more    powerful,    and   spreads   more 
widely,  than  another;  or  why  the  same  nation  pro-  . 
gresses  more  quickly  at  one  time  than  at  another. 
We  can  only  say  that  it  depends  on  an  increase  in  , 
the  actual  number  of  the  population,  on  the  number 
of  the  men  endowed  with  high  intellectual  and  moral  ^ 
faculties,  as  well  as  on  their  standard  of  excellence.* 

It  is  these  same  intellectual  and  moral  qualities 
which  constitute  the  survival  factors  in  the  struggle 
between  civilized  and  barbarous  nations: 

At  the  present  day  civilized  nations  are  every- 
where supplanting  barbarous  nations,  excepting 
where  the  climate  opposes  a  deadly  barrier;  and 
they  succeed  mainly,  though  not  exclusively,  through 
their  arts,  which  are  the  products  of  the  intellect.'^ 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  158-59.  'Idem,  p.  156. 

» Idem,  p.  144. 


28o   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

Darwin  recognizes  war  as  one  of  the  factors  in 
the  disappearance  of  the  less  civilized  races,  just 
as  a  geologist  recognizes  earthquakes  as  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  folding  of  the  earth's  crust,  but  he 
assigns  to  it  a  subordinate  role  and  reveals  his 
truly  scientific  spirit,  by  enumerating  it  only 
among  a  dozen  other  slow  and  invisible  causes: 

Extinction  follows  chiefly  from  the  competition  of 
tribe  with  tribe  and  race  with  race.  Various  checks 
are  always  in  action,  serving  to  keep  down  the  nimi- 
bers  of  each  savage  tribe — such  as  periodical  famines, 
nomadic  habits,  and  the  consequent  deaths  of  infants, 
prolonged  suckling,  wars,  accidents,  sickness, licentious- 
ness, the  stealing  of  women,  infanticide,  and  especi- 
ally lessened  fertility.  If  any  one  of  these  checks 
increases  in  power  even  slightly,  the  tribe  thus  affected 
tends  to  decrease;  and  when  of  two  adjoining  tribes 
one  becomes  less  numerous  than  the  other,  the  con- 
test is  soon  settled  by  war,  slaughter,  cannibalism, 
slavery,  and  absorption.  Even  when  a  weaker  tribe 
is  not  thus  abruptly  swept  away,  if  it  once  begins  to 
decrease,  it  generally  goes  on  decreasing  until  it  be- 
comes extinct.^ 

He  describes  also  the  slow  and  invisible  causes 
of  the  disappearance  of  the  barbarian  races  before 
the  civilized  races: 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  198. 

The  true  cause  of  the  extinction  of  races,  according  to  Darwin, 
is  to  be  found  in  these  slow  and  unrecognized  factors.  Collec- 
,  tive  homicide  plays  but  an  incidental  r61e,  serving  at  most  to 
hasten  an  otherwise  inevitable  process. 


War  Results  in  Negative  Selection    281 

When  civilized  nations  come  into  contact  with  bar- 
barians the  struggle  is  short,  except  where  a  deadly 
climate  gives  its  aid  to  the  native  race.  Of  the  causes 
which  lead  to  the  victory  of  civilized  nations,  some 
are  plain  and  simple,  others  complex  and  obscure. 
We  can  see  that  the  cultivation  of  the  land  will  be 
fatal  in  many  ways  to  savages,  for  they  cannot,  or 
will  not,  change  their  habits.  New  diseases  and 
vices  have  in  some  cases  proved  highly  destructive; 
and  it  appears  that  a  new  disease  often  causes  much 
death,  until  those  who  are  most  susceptible  to  its 
destructive  influence  are  gradually  weeded  out;  and 
so  it  may  be  with  the  evil  effects  from  spirituous 
liquors,  as  well  as  with  the  unconquerably  strong 
taste  for  them  shown  by  so  many  savages.  It  further 
appears,  mysterious  as  is  the  fact,  that  the  first  meet- 
ing of  distinct  and  separated  people  generates  dis- 
ease. Mr.  Sproat,  who  in  Vancouver  Island  closely 
attended  to  the  subject  of  extinction,  believed  that 
changed  habits  of  life,  consequent  on  the  advent  of 
Europeans,  induces  much  ill-health.  He  lays,  also, 
great  stress  on  the  apparently  trifling  cause  that  the 
natives  become  "bewildered  and  dull  by  the  new  life 
around  them;  they  lose  the  motives  for  exertion,  and 
get  no  new  ones  in  their  place.  "^ 

After  surveying  the  whole  field  of  the  causes, 
Darwin  returns  to  the  factor  of  a  lessened  fer- 
tility of  women  which  follows  changed  condi- 
tions among  barbarous  peoples  not  able  to  adapt 
themselves  to  the  new  civilization,  and  he  de- 
votes   a   large    part    of    his    chapter    on    "The 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  pp.  198-99. 


282   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

Extinction  of  Races"  to  a  study  of  this  decisive 
factor. 

Darwin  points  out  that  the  effect  of  war  would 
be  a  reversed  selection,  since  the  bravest  men, 
who  are  always  willing  to  come  to  the  front  in  the 
war  and  freely  to  risk  their  lives  for  others,  would 
on  the  average  perish  in  larger  numbers  than  others 
and  would  leave  no  offspring  to  inherit  their  noble 
nature.  He  even  points  out  how  militarism,  by 
preventing  co-operation  and  the  formation  of 
larger  political  units,  may  offset  high  intellectual 
powers,  such  as  those  possessed  by  the  old  Greeks. 
The  true  cause  of  their  downfall  he  traces  to  the 
weakening  of  the  moral  bonds : 

The  Greeks  may  have  retrograded  from  a  want  of 
coherence  between  the  many  small  states,  from  the 
small  size  of  their  whole  country,  from  the  practice 
of  slavery,  or  from  extreme  sensuality;  for  they  did 
not  succumb  until  "they  were  enervated  and  corrupt 
to  the  very  core."  The  western  nations  of  Europe, 
who  now  so  immeasurably  surpass  their  former  sav- 
age progenitors,  and  stand  at  the  summit  of  civi- 
lization, owe  little  or  none  of  their  superiority  to 
direct  inheritance  from  the  old  Greeks,  though  they 
owe  much  to  the  written  works  of  that  wonderful 
people.  ^ 

And  in  a  letter  to  his  friend  Lyell  he  emphasizes 
the  fact  that  the  history  of  the  Greeks  verifies 
his  theories  of  social  progress: 

*  The  Descent  oj  Man,  p.  157. 


The  Genealogy  of  Morals        283 

.  .  .  The  high  state  of  intellectual  development  of  the 
old  Grecians  with  the  little  or  no  subsequent  improve- 
ment .  .  .  harmonizes  perfectly  with  our  views.  The 
case  would  be  decidedly  difficult  on  the  Lamarckian  or 
Vestigian  doctrine  of  necessary  progression,  but  on 
the  view  which  I  hold  of  progress  depending  upon  the 
conditions,  it  is  no  objection  at  all,  and  harmonizes 
with  the  other  facts  of  progression.  .  .  .  For  in  a 
state  of  anarchy,  or  despotism,  or  bad  government, 
or  after  an  irruption  of  barbarians,  force,  strength, 
or  ferocity,  and  not  intellect,  would  be  apt  to  gain 
the  day.* 

This  is  a  pellucidly  clear  statement  of  the  true 
Darwinian  theory  that  social  progress  depends, 
not  upon  force  and  collective  homicide,  but  upon 
institutions  and  ideas. 

Darwin's  Theory  of  the  Evolution  of  the  Moral  Law 

Much  light  is  thrown  upon  Darwin's  theory  of  *■ 
social  progress  by  an  analysis  of  his  derivation 
of  the  moral  law.     The  philosophy  of  force  has  ^ 
much  to  say  about  the  ethics  of  evolution,  but  in 
the  true  Darwinian  theory  the  guiding  principle  is 
the  evolution  of  ethics. 

The  moral  sense,  according  to  Darwin,  is  the 
greatest  of  all  distinctions  between  man  and  the    • 
lower  animals: 

I  fully  subscribe  to  the  judgment  of  those  writers 
who  maintain  that  of  all  the  differences  between  man 

'  Lijt  and  Letter  $  of  Charles  Darwin,  vol.  ii,,  p.  89. 


284   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

and  the  lower  animals,  the  moral  sense  or  conscience  is 
by  far  the  most  important.  ...  It  is  the  most  noble 
of  all  the  attributes  of  man,  leading  him  without  a 
moment's  hesitation  to  risk  his  life  for  that  of  a  fellow 
creature;  or  after  due  deliberation,  impelled  simply  by 
the  deep  feeling  of  right  or  duty,  to  sacrifice  it  in  some 
great  cause.  ^ 

And  again  in  the  general  summary  of  his  theory 
at  the  end  of  the  book  he  says : 

A  moral  being  is  one  who  is  capable  of  reflecting  on 
his  past  actions  and  their  motives — of  approving  of 
some  and  disapproving  of  others ;  and  the  fact  that  man 
is  the  one  being  who  certainly  deserves  this  designa- 
tion, is  the  greatest  of  all  distinctions  between  him  and 
the  lower  animals.^ 

This  moral  sense  which  so  clearly  distinguishes 
man  from  the  animal  world,  however,  does  not 
mark  a  break  in  the  cosmic  process,  but  is  an 
inevitable  result  of  the  great  principle  of  evolution 
which  runs  through  the  universe.  The  moral 
sense,  according  to  Darwin,  is  the  natural  and 
inevitable  development  from  the  social  instincts, 
and  he  lays  down  as  the  basis  of  his  thesis  the 
following  proposition: 

.  .  .  Any  animal  whatever,  endowed  with  well- 
marked  social  instincts,  the  parental  and  filial  affections 
being  here  included,  would  inevitably  acquire  a  moral 
sense  or  conscience,  as  soon  as  its  intellectual  powers 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  1 12.  « Idem,  p.  634. 


Social  Instincts  Basis  of  Moral  Sense  285 

had  become  as  well,  or  nearly  as  well,  developed  as  in 
man.  For,  firstly,  the  social  instincts  lead  an  animal* 
to  take  pleasure  in  the  society  of  its  fellows,  to  feel  a 
certain  amount  of  sympathy  with  them,  and  to  per- 
form various  services  for  them.  The  services  may  be' 
of  a  definite  and  evidently  instinctive  nature,  or  there 
may  be  only  a  wish  and  readiness,  as  with  most  of  the 
higher  social  animals,  to  aid  their  fellows  in  certain 
general  ways.  But  these  feelings  and  services  are  by 
no  means  extended  to  all  the  individuals  of  the  same 
species,  only  to  those  of  the  same  association.  Secondly, 
as  soon  as  the  mental  faculties  had  become  highly 
developed,  images  of  all  past  actions  and  motives  would 
be  incessantly  passing  through  the  brain  of  each 
individual;  and  that  feeling  of  dissatisfaction,  or  even 
misery,  which  invariably  results  from  any  unsatisfied 
instinct,  would  arise,  as  often  as  it  was  perceived  that 
the  enduring  and  always  present  social  instinct  had 
yielded  to  some  other  instinct,  at  the  time  stronger, 
but  neither  enduring  in  its  nature  nor  leaving  behind 
it  a  very  vivid  impression.  It  is  clear  that  many 
instinctive  desires,  such  as  that  of  hunger,  are  in  their 
nature  of  short  duration;  and  after  being  satisfied, 
are  not  readily  or  vividly  recalled.  Thirdly,  after, 
the  power  of  language  had  been  acquired,  and  the 
wishes  of  the  community  could  be  expressed,  the 
common  opinion  how  each  member  ought  to  act  for 
the  pubHc  good  would  naturally  become  in  a  para- 
mount degree  the  guide  to  action.  But  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that,  however  great  weight  we  may 
attribute  to  public  opinion,  our  regard  for  the  appro- 
bation and  disapprobation  of  our  fellows  depends  on"" 
sympathy,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  forms  an  essential 
part  of  the  social  instinct,  and  is  indeed  its  foundation- 


286  Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

stone.  Lastly,  habit  in  the  individual  would  ultimately 
play  a  very  important  part  in  guiding  the  conduct 
of  each  member;  for  the  social  instinct,  together 
with  sympathy,  is,  like  any  other  instinct,  greatly 
strengthened  by  habit,  and  so  consequently  would 
be  obedience  to  the  wishes  and  judgment  of  the 
community.^ 

i 

In  other  words,  Darwin's  thesis,  expressed  in 

the  language  used  by  the  mathematicians,  is  that 
'the  social  instincts  are  the  necessary  and  sufficient 

conditions  for  the  evolution  of  a  moral  sense, 
i     The  next  step  in  the  reasoning,  namely  that  man 

possesses  social  instincts,  hardly  needs  an  elaborate 
,  proof.     Darwin  says: 

Everyone  will  admit  that  man  is  a  social  being. 
We  see  this  in  his  dislike  of  solitude,  and  in  his  wish 
for  society  beyond  that  of  his  own  family.  Solitary 
confinement  is  one  of  the  severest  punishments  which 
can  be  inflicted.  Some  authors  suppose  that  man 
I  primevally  lived  in  single  families,  but  at  the  present 
day,  though  single  families,  or  only  two  or  three 
together,  roam  the  solitude  of  some  savage  lands,  they 
always,  as  far  as  I  can  discover,  hold  friendly  relations 
with  other  families  inhabiting  the  same  district. 
Such  families  occasionally  meet  in  council,  and  unite 
for  their  common  defence.  .  .  .  Judging  from  the 
analogy  of  the  majority  of  the  Quadrumana,  it  is 
probable  that  the  early  ape-like  progenitors  of  man 
were  likewise  social.* 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  pp.  113-14. 
•  Idem,  pp.  123-24. 


No  Society  Without  Moral  Law  287 

According  to  the  distorted  social  Darwinism,  , 
force  is  the  basis  of  society,  but  in  the  true  Dar- 
winian theory  the  foundation  of  society  is  the 
moral  law,  derived  from  the  social  instincts.     The 
purpose  of  the  moral  sense  is  to  secure  the  welfare  ^ 
of  the  tribe: 

We  have  now  seen  that  actions  are  regarded  by 
savages,  and  were  probably  so  regarded  by  primeval 
man,  as  good  or  bad,  solely  as  they  obviously  affect 
the  welfare  of  the  tribe — not  that  of  the  species, 
nor  that  of  an  individual  member  of  the  tribe.  This 
conclusion  agrees  well  with  the  belief  that  the  so-called 
moral  sense  is  aboriginally  derived  from  the  social 
instincts,  for  both  relate  at  first  exclusively  to  the 
community.* 

And  he  points  out  that  society,  even  on  the  limited 
scale  of  the  tribes,  could  not  exist  without  such  a 
moral  sense. 

No  tribe  could  hold  together  if  murder,  robbery, 
treachery,  etc.,  were  common;  consequently  such 
crimes  within  the  limits  of  the  same  tribe  "are  branded 
with  everlasting  infamy.  "* 

The  contrast  could  scarcely  be  made  more  clear 
between  Darwin's  theory  of  society,  held  together 
from  within  by  the  cementing  power  of  the  moral 
sense  and  social  instincts,  and  the  theories  of  the 
philosophy  of  force,  as  represented  in  the  sociology 
of    Spencer,    Ward,   and    Ratzenhofer,    in  which 

'  The  Descent  oj  Man,  p.  134.  » Idem,  p.  132. 


288    Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

society  is  held  together  only  by  the  external  force 
exerted  by  some  other  society,  this  other  society 
having  been  constituted  and  held  together  in  some 
miraculous  way. 

Darwin  traces  the  evolution  of  the  moral  law 
with  a  master's  hand.  Analysing  it  down  to  its 
cosmic  roots,  he  finds  at  the  basis  the  element  of 
love,  and  sympathy,  which  is  distinct  from  love: 

The  development  of  the  moral  qualities  is  a  more 
interesting  problem.  The  foundation  lies  in  the  social 
instincts,  including  under  this  term  the  family  ties. 
These  instincts  are  highly  complex,  and  in  the  case  of 
the  lower  animals  give  special  tendencies  toward  cer- 
tain definite  actions;  but  the  more  important  elements 
are  love,  and  the  distinct  emotion  of  sympathy.  ^ 

Darwin  follows  this  element  of  love  far  down  into 
the  animal  kingdom.  From  this  element  of  love, 
through  the  channel  of  the  parental  and  filial 
affections,  have  been  evolved  the  social  instincts, 
leading  to  mutual  aid — the  greatest  factor  of 
social  evolution.  The  social  instincts  must  have 
preceded  association,  just  as  the  sense  of  hunger 
and  the  pleasure  of  eating  were  no  doubt  first 
acquired  in  order  to  induce  animals  to  eat.  He 
traces  the  first  stages  in  the  evolution  of  the  social 
instinct  as  follows : 

The  feeling  of  pleasure  from  society  is  probably 
an  extension  of  the  parental  or  filial  affections,  since 
the  sociajjnsb'nct  seems,  tobe^  developed  by  the  young 

*  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  634. 


Effect  of  Prolonged  Childhood    289 

remaining  for  a  long-time  with  their  parents ;  and  this 
extension  may  be  attributed  in  part  to  habit,  but 
chiefly  to  natural  selection.  With  those  animals 
which  were  benefited  by  living  in  close  association, 
the  individuals  which  took  the  greatest  pleasure  in 
society  would  best  escape  various  dangers;  while 
those  that  cared  least  for  their  comrades,  and  lived 
solitary,  would  perish  in  greater  numbers.  With 
respect  to  the  origin  of  the  parental  and  filial  affections, 
which  apparently  lie  at  the  base  of  the  social  instincts, 
we  know  not  the  steps  by  which  they  have  been  gained; 
but  we  may  infer  that  it  has  been  to  a  large  extent 
through  natural  selection  .  .  .  Parental  affection, 
or  some  feeling  which  replaces  it,  has  been  developed 
in  certain  animals  extremely  low  in  the  scale,  for 
example,  in  star-fishes  and  spiders.^ 

From  this  extension  of  the  filial  and  parental 
affections  have  come  the  important  social  qualities 
of  sympathy,  fidelity,  and  courage: 

Turning  now  to  the  social  and  moral  faculties.  In 
order  that  primeval  men,  or  the  ape-like  progenitors 
of  man,  should  become  social,  they  must  have  acquired 
the  same  instinctive  feelings  which  impel  other  ani- 
mals to  live  in  a  body;  and  they  no  doubt  exhibited 
the  same  general  disposition.  They  would  have  felt 
uneasy  when  separated  from  their  comrades,  for  whom 
they  would  have  felt  some  degree  of  love ;  they  would 
have  warned  each  other  of  danger,  and  have  given 
mutual  aid  in  attack  or  defence.  All  this  implies  some 
degree  of  sympathy,  fidelity,  and  courage.  Such 
social  qualities,  the  paramount  importance  of  which 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  pp.  120-21. 
19 


290   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

to  the  lower  animals  is  disputed  by  no  one,  were  no 
doubt  acquired  by  the  progenitors  of  man  in  a  similar 
manner,  namely,  through  natural  selection,  aided 
by  inherited_habit.^  \ 

Darwin  then  proceeds  to  explain  how,  in  response 
to  the  need  for  promoting  the  welfare  of  the  tribe, 
the  social  virtues  of  truth,  self-sacrifice,  self- 
command,  and  the  power  of  endurance  are 
developed : 

There  cannot  be  fidelity  without  truth;  and  this 
fundamental  virtue  is  not  rare  between  the  members 
of  the  same  tribe:  thus  Mungo  Park  heard  the  negro 
women  teaching  their  young  children  to  love  the 
truth.  This,  again,  is  one  of  the  virtues  which  becomes 
so  deeply  rooted  in  the  mind  that  it  is  sometimes 
practised  by  savages,  even  at  a  high  cost,  toward 
strangers;  but  to  lie  to  your  enemy  has  rarely  been 
thought  a  sin,  as  the  history  of  modern  diplomacy  too 
plainly  shows.  As  soon  as  a  tribe  has  a  recognized 
leader,  disobedience  becomes  a  crime,  and  even  abject 
submission  is  looked  at  as  a  sacred  virtue. 

As  during  rude  times  no  man  can  be  useful  or 
faithful  to  his  tribe  without  courage,  this  quality  has 
universally  been  placed  in  the  highest  rank;  and 
although  in  civilized  countries  a  good  yet  timid  man 
may  be  far  more  useful  to  the  community  than  a 
brave  one,  we  cannot  help  instinctively  honouring  the 
latter  above  a  coward,  however  benevolent.  Prudence 
on  the  other  hand,  which  does  not  concern  the  welfare 
of  others,  though  a  very  useful  virtue,  has  never  been 

*  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  145. 


Rational  Basis  of  Morality        291 

highly  esteemed.  As  no  man  can  practise  the  virtues 
necessary  for  the  welfare  of  his  tribe  without  self- 
sacrifice,  self-command,  and  the  power  of  endurance, 
these  qualities  have  been  at  all  times  highly  and  most 
justly  valued.  The  American  savage  voluntarily  sub- 
mits to  the  most  horrid  tortures  without  a  groan, 
to  prove  and  strengthen  his  fortitude  and  courage; 
and  we  cannot  help  admiring  him,  or  even  an  Indian 
Fakir,  who,  from  a  foolish  religious  motive,  swings 
suspended  by  a  hook  buried  in  his  flesh.* 

This  brings  us  to  another  problem.  How  are 
actions  which  are  useless  for  the  welfare  of  the 
tribe,  such  as  the  self-torture  by  an  Indian  Fakir, 
to  become  immoral  actions,  while  the  moral 
sense  gradually  changes  its  character  to  meet 
changed  conditions?  How  can  morality  be  made 
identical  with  the  welfare  of  the  community? 
Evidently  some  factor  of  reason  and  foresight 
must  come  in  to  direct  the  action  of  love  and 
the  social  instincts.  This  problem  leads  Darwin 
to  the  discovery  of  the  second  great  root  of  the 
moral  law  in  the  desire  for  happiness  and  in  the 
reasoning  powers  of  the  individual : 

As  all  men  desire  their  own  happiness,  praise  or 
blame  is  bestowed  on  actions  and  motives,  according 
as  they  lead  to  this  end ;  and  as  happiness  is  an  essen- 
tial part  of  .the  general  good,  the  greatest-happiness  ^ 
principle  Jndirectly  serves  as  a  nearly  safe  standard 
of  right  and  wrong.  As  the  reasoning  powers  advance 
and  experience  is  gained,  the  remoter  effects  of  certain 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  pp.  133-34. 


292   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

lines  of  conduct  on  the  character  of  the  individual, 
and  on  the  general  good,  are  perceived;  and  then  the 
self-regarding  virtues  come  within  the  scope  of  pubUc 
opinion,  and  receive  praise,  and  their  opposites  blame.  ^ 

Darwin  finds  the  chief  force  making  for  moral 
progress  in  this  love  of  praise  and  dread  of  blame, 
which  acts  through  public  opinion.  He  traces  it 
back  to  the  remote  antiquity  of  the  race  and  shows 
how  it  has  become  a  highly  complex  sentiment 
in  modern  times: 

We  may  therefore  conclude  that  primeval  man,  at  a 
very  remote  period,  was  influenced  by  the  praise  and 
blame  of  his  fellows.  It  is  obvious  that  the  members 
of  the  same  tribe  would  approve  of  conduct  which 
appeared  to  them  to  be  for  the  general  good,  and  would 
reprobate  that  which  appeared  evil.  To  do  good  unto 
others — to  do  unto  others  as  ye  would  they  should  do 
unto  you — ^is  the  foundation-stone  of  morality.  It  is, 
therefore,  hardly  possible  to  exaggerate  the  impor- 
tance, during  rude  times,  of  the  love  of  praise  and  the 
dread  of  blame.  A  man  who  was  not  impelled  by  any 
deep,  instinctive  feeling  to  sacrifice  his  life  for  the  good 
of  others,  yet  was  roused  to  such  actions  by  a  sense 
of  glory,  would  by  his  example  excite  the  same  wish 
for  glory  in  other  men,  and  would  strengthen  by  exer- 
cise the  noble  feeling  of  admiration.  .  .  .  Ultimately 
our  moral  sense  or  conscience  becomes  a  highly  complex 
sentiment — originating  in  the  social  instincts,  largely 
guided  by  the  approbation  of  our  fellow-men,  ruled  by 
reason,  self-interest,  and  in  later  times  by  deep  reli- 
gious feelings,  and  confirmed  by  instruction  and  habit.  ^ 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  635.  '  Idem,  pp.  147-48. 


Religion  and  Social  Progress     293 

The  causes  of  social  progress  Darwin  finds  in 
those  factors  which  strengthen  morahty. 

The  more  efficient  causes  of  progress  seem  to 
consist  of  a  good  education  during  youth  while  the 
brain  is  impressible,  and  of  a  high  standard  of  excel- 
lence inculcated  by  the  ablest  and  best  men,  embodied 
in  the  laws,  customs,  and  traditions  of  the  nation, 
and  enforced  by  public  opinion.  It  should,  however, 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  enforcement  of  public 
opinion  depends  on  our  appreciation  of  the  appro- 
bation and  disapprobation  of  others ;  and  this  appreci- 
ation is  founded  on  our  sympathy,  which  it  can  hardly 
be  doubted  was  originally  developed  through  natural 
selection  as  one  of  the  most  important  elements  of 
the  social  instincts.^ 

Darwin  recognizes  not  only  reason,  but  also 
religion  as  a  potent  influence  in  moral  progress. 

The  moral  nature  of  man  has  reached  its  present 
standard  partly  through  the  advancement  of  his 
reasoning  powers,  and  consequently  of  a  just  public 
opinion,  but  especially  from  his  sympathies  having 
been  rendered  more  tender  and  widely  diffused 
through  the  effects  of  habit,  example,  instruction,  and 
reflection.  .  .  .  With  the  more  civilized  races,  the 
conviction  of  the  existence  of  an  all-seeing  Deity  has 
had  a  potent  influence  on  the  advance  of  morality.  ^ 

He  finds  the  great  principle  of  reciprocity 
laid  down  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  be  the 
foundation  of  the  moral  law,  a  kind  of  law  of 
gravitation  in  human  relations : 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  159.  » Idem,  p.  636. 


294  Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

The  moral  sense  perhaps  affords  the  best  and  highest 
distinction  between  man  and  the  lower  animals; 
but  I  need  say  nothing  on  this  head,  as  I  have  so  lately 
endeavoured  to  show  that  the  social  instincts — the 
prime  principle  of  man's  moral  constitution — with  the 
aid  of  active  intellectual  powers  and  the  effects 
of  habit,  naturally  lead  to  the  golden  rule,  "As  ye 
would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  to  them 
likewise";  and  this  lies  at  the  foundation  of  morality.* 

Darwin's  genealogy  of  morals  may  conveniently 
be  represented  by  means  of  a  graphic  illustration. 
At  the  centre  of  the  process  of  evolution  is  the 
factor  of  mutual  aid,  going  back  on  the  one  side 
through  the  social  instincts  and  the  parental 
and  filial  affections  to  its  cosmic  roots  of  love ;  and 
on  the  other  side,  through  the  desire  for  happiness 
and  enlightened  self-interest  to  reason  and  the 
first  dawnings  of  intelligence  in  the  scale  of  animal 
life.  From  this  elementary  need  of  mutual  aid  we 
may  trace  the  causes  of  the  advance  of  morality  as 
summed  up  by  Darwin : 

The  approbation  of  our  fellow-men — the  strengthen- 
ing of  our  sympathies  by  habit — example  and  imitation 
— reason — experience,  and  even  self-interest — in- 
struction during  youth,  and  religious  feelings,' 

The  result  of  this  evolutionary  process,  leading 
up  to  the  moral  law,  is  represented  in  the  accom- 
panying figure: 

I  The  Descent  of  Man,  p,  142.  *  Idem,  p.  153. 


The  Evolution  of  the  Moral  Law  295 


296  Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

"Two  things  fill  my  soul  with  ever  new  and 
increasing  wonder  and  awe  the  oftener  and  the 
more  continuously  I  reflect  upon  them,"  said 
Immanuel  Kant,  "the  starry  heavens  above  me 
and  the  moral  law  within  me.  "^  Darwin's  theory 
of  social  progress  enthrones  the  moral  law  as  the 
highest  form  of  adaptation  and  brings  it,  as  the 
nebular  hypothesis  has  brought  the  starry  heavens, 
within  the  cosmic  sweep  of  the  evolutionary 
process. 

The  Causes  of  Moral  Advance 

As  social  progress  in  the  Darwinian  theory 
is  dependent  upon  morality,  the  causes  of  moral 
advance  must  occupy  an  important  place  in  the 
social  sciences.  We  have  already  noted  ^  the 
effect  of  the  factor  of  reason  in  contributing  to 
the  change  of  moral  standards  and  especially  in  en- 
forcing the  observance  of  moral  conduct,  but  the 
importance  of  the  question  justifies  us  in  consider- 
ing it  in  a  little  more  detail. 

Since  the  standard  of  morality  is  the  general 
welfare  of  the  community,  a  most  important 
question  is:  How  do  these  standards  become 
changed  to  agree  with  more  enlightened  ideas  as  to 
what  constitutes  the  welfare  of  a  community? 
In  a  number  of  places  Darwin  considers  the 
problem  of  the  diversion  of  morality  from  the 
standards  of  true  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  com- 

'  Kant,  Kritik  der  praktischen  Vernunft  (Conclusion),  p.  205. 
» See  supra,  pp.  291-93. 


The  Supremacy  of  Conscience    297 

munity.     The    judgment    of   the   community   is 
far  from  infallible ;  he  says : 

The  judgment  of  the  community  will  generally  be 
guided  by  some  rude  experience  of  what  is  best  in  the 
long  run  for  all  the  members;  but  this  judgment  will 
not  rarely  err  from  ignorance  and  weak  powers  of 
-reasoning.  Hence  the  strangest  customs  and  super- 
stitions, in  complete  opposition  to  the  true  welfare 
and  happiness  of  mankind,  have  become  all-powerful 
throughout  the  world.  We  see  this  in  the  horror 
felt  by  a  Hindoo  who  breaks  his  caste,  and  in  many 
other  such  cases.  ^ 

And  in  the  summary  of  his  theory  he  returns  to  the 
same  point: 

But  with  the  less  civilized  nations  reason  often  errs, 
and  many  bad  customs  and  base  superstitions  come 
within  the  same  scope,  and  are  then  esteemed  as  high 
virtues,  and  their  breach  as  heavy  crimes.* 

Darwin  finds  the  remedy  for  such  wrong  moral 
standards  in  the  reason  and  conscience  of  the 
individual,  who  can  thus  rise  above  the  current 
standards  of  morality  and  aid  in  establishing 
higher  standards  more  in  accord  with  the  true 
welfare  of  humanity.     Thus  he  says : 

...  As  love,  sympathy,  and  self-command  become 
strengthened  by  habit,  and  as  the  power  of  reasoning 
becomes  clearer,  so  that  man  can  value  justly  the 
judgments  of  his  fellows,  he  will  feel  himself  impelled, 

"  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  137.  » Idem,  pp.  635-36. 


298   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

apart  from  any  transitory  pleasure  or  pain,  to  certain 
lines  of  conduct.  He  might  then  declare — not  that 
any  barbarian  or  uncultivated  man  could  thus  think — 
I  am  the  supreme  judge  of  my  own  conduct,  and,  in  the 
words  of  Kant,  I  will  not  in  my  own  person  violate  the 
dignity  of  humanity.^ 

And  in  his  general  summary  he  adds : 

Ultimately  man  does  not  accept  the  praise  or  blame 
of  his  fellows  as  his  sole  guide,  though  few  escape 
this  influence,  but  his  habitual  convictions,  controlled 
by  reason,  afford  him  the  safest  rule.  His  conscience 
then  becomes  the  supreme  judge  and  monitor.^ 

He  then  describes  the  manner  in  which  the  higher 
moral  standard,  as  embodied  in  some  new  virtue 
such  as  humanity,  spreads  to  the  other  members 
of  the  community : 

As  soon  as  this  virtue  is  honoured  and  practised  by 
some  few  men,  it  spreads  through  instruction  and 
example  to  the  young,  and  eventually  becomes 
incorporated  in  public  opinion.^ 

The  intellectual  faculties  and  especially  imagina- 
tion are  of  fundamental  importance  for  the  high 
standard  of  conscience  and  morality.  Imagin- 
ation is  one  of  the  most  powerful  forces  in  creating 
a  social  conscience  and  Darwin  advocates  its 
cultivation  as  an  important  element  of  social 
progress : 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  125.  •  Idem,  p.  636. 

3  Idem,  p.  138. 


Imagination  a  Survival  Factor    299 

The  moral  faculties  are  generally  and  justly  es- 
teemed as  of  higher  value  than  the  intellectual  powers. 
But  we  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  activity  of  the 
mind  in  vividly  recalling  past  impressions  is  one  of  the 
fundamental,  though  secondary,  bases  of  conscience.* 
,This  affords  the  strongest  argument  for  educating  and 
stimulating  in  all  possible  ways  the  intellectual  facul- 
ties of  every  human  being.  No  doubt  a  man  with  a 
torpid  mind,  if  his  social  affections  and  sympathies  are 
well  developed,  will  be  led  to  good  actions,  and  may 
have  a  fairly  sensitive  conscience.  But  whatever 
renders  the  imagination  more  vivid,  and  strengthens 
the  habit  of  recalling  and  comparing  past  impressions, 
will  make  the  conscience  more  sensitive,  and  may 
even  somewhat  compensate  for  weak  social  affections 
and  sympathies.* 

It  is  largely  because  of  this  service  as  one 
of  the  fundamental  bases  of  conscience  and  there- 
fore of  moral  advance  that  Darwin  finds  that  many 
of  the  mental  faculties,  such  as  the  powers  of  the 
imagination,  wonder,  curiosity,  an  undefined  sense 
of  beauty,  a  tendency  to  imitation  and  the  love  of 
excitement  or  novelty,  have  been  of  inestimable 
service  to  man  for  his  progressive  advancement.^ 
Even  the  aesthetic  qualities,  "the  ability  to  admire 
such  scenes  as  the  heavens  at  night,  a  beautiful 

'  In  a  letter  to  John  Morley  in  187 1,  Darwin  wrote:  "When  I 
speak  of  intellectual  activity  as  the  secondary  basis  of  conscience, 
I  meant  in  my  own  mind  secondary  in  period  of  development; 
but  no  one  could  be  expected  to  understand  so  great  an  ellipse." 
— More  Letters  of  Clmrles  Darwin,  vol.  i.,  p.  327. 

«  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  636.  ^  Idem,  p.  109. 


300   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

landscape,  or  refined  music,"  become  important 
survival  factors  because  of  their  contributions  to 
the  power  of  imagination,  and  it  is  through  its 
contributions  to  a  higher  standard  of  morality 
that  religion  and  the  "ennobling  belief  in  the 
existence  of  an  Omnipotent  God"^  become  impor- 
tant factors  of  social  progress. 

Among  the  most  important  contributing  factors 
to  moral  advancement  and  therefore  of  social  pro- 
gress, Darwin  emphasizes  the  extension  of  the 
recognized  limits  of  association.  He  shows  by 
numerous  examples  that  the  narrower  are  the 
limits  of  association  the  lower  will  be  the  standard 
of  morality,  and  assigns  to  this  factor  the  first 
place  among  the  causes  of  the  low  morality  of 
savages : 

The  chief  causes  of  the  low  morality  of  savages, 
as  judged  by  our  standard,  are,  firstly,  the  confinement 
of  sympathy  to  the  same  tribe.  Secondly,  powers 
of  reasoning  insufficient  to  recognize  the  bearing  of 
many  virtues,  especially  of  the  self-regarding  virtues, 
on  the  general  welfare  of  the  tribe.  Savages,  for 
instance,  fail  to  trace  the  multiplied  evils  consequent 
on  a  want  of  temperance,  chastity,  etc.  And,  thirdly, 
weak  power  of  self-command;  for  this  power  has  not 
been  strengthened  through  long-continued,  perhaps 
inherited,  habit,  instruction,  and  religion.^ 

He  traces  the  evolution  of  morality  with  the 
widening  intellectual  horizon  of  man  as  follows: 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  109.  ^Idem,  pp.  134-35. 


World  Unity  the  Goal  of  Evolution   301 

As  man  gradually  advanced  in  intellectual  power, 
and  was  enabled  to  trace  the  more  remote  consequences 
of  his  actions;  as  he  acquired  sufficient  knowledge  to 
reject  baneful  customs  and  superstitions ;  as  he  regard- 
ed more  and  more  not  only  the  welfare,  but  the  happi- 
ness of  his  fellow-men;  as  from  habit,  following  on 
beneficial  experience,  instruction,  and  example,  his 
sympathies  became  more  tender  and  widely  diffused, 
extending  to  men  of  all  races,  to  the  imbecile,  maimed, 
and  other  useless  members  of  society,  and  finally  to 
the  lower  animals — so  would  the  standard  of  his 
morality  rise  higher  and  higher.^ 

And  he  emphasizes  especially  the  gradual  widening 
of  the  limits  of  association,  in  spite  of  many 
obstacles,  until  the  social  instincts  and  sympathy 
are  extended  to  include  all  humanity. 

As  man  advances  in  civilization,  and  small  tribes 
are  united  into  larger  communities,  the  simplest  reason 
would  tell  each  individual  that  he  ought  to  extend  his 
social  instincts  and  sympathies  to  all  the  members  of 
the  same  nation,  though  personally  unknown  to  him. 
This  point  being  once  reached,  there  is  only  an  arti- 
ficial barrier  to  prevent  his  sympathies  extending 
to  the  men  of  all  nations  and  races.  If,  indeed,  such 
men  are  separated  from  him  by  great  differences  in 
appearance  or  habits,  experience  unfortunately  shows 
us  how  long  it  is  before  we  look  at  them  as  our  fellow- 
creatiu"es.  ^ 

The  inclusion  of  the  entire  human  race  within 

'  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  140.  "  Idem,  p.  138. 


302   Darwin's  Theory  of  Social  Progress 

the  bounds  of  the  moral  law, — the  federation  of  the 
world, — becomes,  therefore,  in  the  true  Darwinian 
theory,  the  ultimate  goal  of  human  evolution.  The 
federation  of  the  human  race  under  a  system 
of  justice  and  law  will  lead  to  the  highest  morality 
and  will  mark  the  greatest  advance  ever  made  in 
social  progress. 

V  Darwin's  theory  of  social  progress,  approaching 
the  problem  from  the  point  of  view  of  biology, 
is  in  striking  agreement  with  the  newer  school 
of  history^  which  finds  the  key  to  evolution  in  the 
extension  of  the  limits  of  association  to  include 
all  humanity.  It  furnishes  the  scientific  founda- 
tion for  Kant's  theory  of  universal  history  as  the 
growth  of  a  world  community,  reconciling  the  free- 
dom of  individuals  and  of  individual  nations  with 
the  accomplishment  of  a  common  aim  for  mankind 
as  a  whole.  In  the  Darwinian  theory  of  social 
progress,  freed  from  the  distortions  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  force,  we  have  the  clear  guiding  principle 
which  seems  to  offer  for  the  social  sciences,  some- 
thing of  the  vitalizing  organization  and  system 
which  the  discovery  of  the  Newtonian  law  of  gravi- 
tation gave  to  the  physical  sciences  in  the  seven- 
teenth century.  The  growth  of  a  common 
humanity — this  is  the  key  to  the  synthesis  of 
the  humanities,  whether  we  approach  them  from 
the  science  of  biology,  from  history,  from  eco- 
,nomics,  from  politial  science,  from  ethics,  or  from 
sociology. 

'  See  supra,  p.  237. 


CHAPTER  X 

MUTUAL  AID  AS  A  LAW  OF  NATURE 

THE  human  race  has  had  up  to  the  present 
only  a  vague  and  intuitive  comprehension 
of  the  advantages  of  association.  Mutual  aid 
constitutes  the  solid  rock  upon  which  all  the  great 
religions  and  systems  of  ethics  are  founded.  The 
importance  of  mutual  aid  has  been  expressed  in 
terms  of  modern  scientific  thought  by  Adam  Smith, 
who  based  his  epoch-making  work  on  political 
economy — The  Wealth  of  Nations — upon  the  great 
fact  of  the  division  of  labour,  and  made  the 
"consciousness  of  kind"  the  foundation  of  his 
Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments.  Bastiat  gave  an 
effective  presentation  to  the  advantages  of  asso- 
ciation in  his  Economic  Harmonies  in  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Darwin  made  mutual 
aid,  and  the  moral  law  which  rests  upon  it,  the 
central  principle  of  his  theory  of  social  progress. 
Kropotkin  in  his  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution 
has  developed  Darwin's  thought  further  and  has 
given  us  the  classic  work  on  the  subject.  The 
genius  of  Novikov  recognized  its  importance  and 
made    it  an    integral   part   of    all    his   scientific 

303 


304     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

writings.  Yet  the  work  of  creating  a  widespread 
understanding  of  the  importance  of  this  central 
fact  of  social  evolution  has  hardly  been  begun. 

Because  men  have  not  realized  the  benefits 
of  association,  those  who  affirm  the  existence  of 
economic  harmonies  and  the  advantages  of  univer- 
sal justice  are  considered  idealists  and  visionaries. 
But  when  men  comprehend  scientifically  that 
association  results  in  life  more  abundant  for  the 
individuals  who  form  the  association,  when  they 
are  intellectually  convinced  that  in  the  end  associ- 
ation is  life  and  that  mutual  aid  and  the  moral 
law  alone  make  society  possible,  and  are  solely  a 
means  to  the  highest  possible  life  for  the  individual, 
then  those  individuals  who  affirm  the  existence  of 
these  harmonies  and  the  advantages  of  justice 
will  be  considered  the  true  realists.  The  apostles 
of  antagonism  and  the  advocates  of  the  philosophy 
of  force  will  then  be  considered  the  visionaries, 
because  they  do  not  see  phenomena  as  they  exist 
in  nature,  but  see  them  only  darkly  through  a 
distorting  glass  of  medieval  conceptions. 

The  philosophy  of  force,  in  assigning  all  progress 
to  mutual  struggle,  ignores  entirely  association, 
although  it  is  one  of  the  most  extended  phenomena 
of  nature.  If  progress  results  from  struggle,  it 
must  resiilt,  in  fact,  from  antagonism.  But  antago- 
nism is  opposed  to  solidarity  and  consequently  to 
association.  As  a  result  it  ought  to  follow  logi- 
cally that  the  less  the  association  we  have,  the 
greater  the  progress.     But  this  conclusion  ignores 


Association  a  Cosmic  Principle    305 

the  significance  of  one  of  the  most  general  laws 
of  the  universe, — the  law  of  progress  and  the 
intensification  of  life  through  association. 

Association  is  a  universal  fact  of  Nature.  From 
the  highest  form  of  life,  the  human  body,  with  its 
thousands  of  billions  of  cells,  down  to  the  lowest 
forms  of  life,  we  find  organisms  created  by  the 
association  of  many  small  units.  Even  a  chemical 
body  is  an  embryonic  association.  In  every  rock 
and  crystal  of  the  mountains,  in  every  drop  of 
water  in  the  sea,  molecules  have  united  in  systems ; 
and  in  the  molecules  themselves  we  find  an  assem- 
blage of  atoms  more  or  less  similar,  held  together 
by  cohesion  and  forming  a  system  in  equilibrium, 
stable  or  unstable.  The  earth  itself  is  a  member 
of  the  solar  system,  held  together  by  gravitation  in 
a  cosmic  association.  Nor  is  the  phenomenon  of 
mutual  attraction  limited  to  our  system.  It  is 
found  in  many  systems  of  double  or  triple  stars 
moving  about  each  other  or  around  their  common 
center.  It  may  be  traced  back  to  the  spiral  streams 
of  nebulae,  in  which  we  can  see  the  movement 
starting,  with  gravitation  drawing  them  slowly 
together  and  globing  them  into  new  suns  and  solar 
systems.  So  does  this  law  of  attraction  and  union 
take  various  forms  and  pervade  the  entire  uni- 
verse.    It  is  a  cosmic  principle. 

But  it  is  in  the  domain  of  biology  that  this 
law  of  association  assumes  its  full  power  and 
undergoes  an  enormous  extension.  Life  and  as- 
sociation  are  synonymous  terms.     The  simplest 


< 


3o6     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

cellule  is  an  association  of  prodigious  complexity. 
As  soon  as  the  microscope  permits  us  to  enlarge 
the  cellule  to  a  sufficient  degree,  we  can  see  that  it 
is  a  whole  world  in  itself.  And  each  element  of 
the  cellule,  the  nucleus,  the  chromosomes,  are  also 
associations  of  elements  still  more  infinitesimal, 
which  are  beyond  our  vision.  Strictly  speaking 
there  are  no  protozoas,  because  all  living  beings 
are  associations.  As  for  those  organisms  which 
are  called  metazoas,  they  are  associations  consisting 
of  an  enormous  mass  of  smaller  units.  The  body 
of  man  is  a  union  of  some  460  trillions  of  cellules. 

The  varieties  of  association  which  are  found 
in  biology  are  almost  infinite.  Biologists  tell  us 
that  there  are  bonds  of  union,  varying  in  impor- 
tance from  almost  complete  independence  to 
absolute  interdependence,  between  the  various 
groups  of  protozas  which  form  the  cellules  in 
related  species.  Lichens,  for  example,  exhibit 
a  form  of  association  called  symbiosis:  they  con- 
sist of  a  union  of  algae  and  fungi.  A  still  more 
mutually  advantageous  relation  exists  between 
certain  algas  and  radiolarians  which  are  so  inter- 
dependent that  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  live 
without  the  other.  The  bonds  which  unite  them 
are  so  intimate  that  they  were  for  a  long  time 
considered  a  single  organism. 

In  Nature  the  relationships  between  living 
beings  are  of  infinite  diversity,  ranging  from  the 
most  irreducible  antagonism  to  the  most  complete 
affinity.     If  when  two  beings  enter  into  contact 


Evolution  is  the  Expansion  of  Life  307 

tteir  union  has  as  a  result  a  greater  vital  intensity 
for  each  of  them,  then  union  takes  place.     If  an- 
tagonism would  produce  a  greater  vital  intensity, 
antagonism    results.     The    dominating    principle  ^ 
in  Nature  is  not  struggle,  nor  is  it  association, 
although  this  is  more  important  than  struggle. 
The    dominating    principle    of    evolution    is    the  ' 
expansion  of  life.     When  association  favours  this 
expansion,  association  takes  place.     When  struggle  ^'^ 
favours  it,  struggle  takes  place.     The  entire  uni- 
verse is  the  result  of  certain  genera]  laws,  and  the  - 
expansion  of  life  is  one  of  the  most  important. 
For  those  beings  between  which  association  is  the 
most  advantageous  combination,  the  vital  inten- 
sity of  the  units  composing  this  association  is  in 
direct  proportion  to  the  amount  of  their  solidarity 
or  interdependence.     For  those  beings  for  whom 
it  is  not  an  advantage  to  unite,  increase  of  vital 
intensity  must  be  sought  in  other  ways. 

The  philosophy  of  force  has  pictured  the  universe 
as  a  perpetual  battle-field,  and  "the  struggle  for 
existence"  has  been  worshipped  as  an  idol, — a  god, 
sombre,  cruel,  unpitying,  omnipotent,  omnipres- 
ent, and  eternal.  But  really  it  does  not  deserve 
this  worship.  The  struggle  for  existence  is  simply 
a  law  of  Nature,  like  the  law  of  gravitation;  but  no 
one  proposes  to  worship  the  law  of  gravitation  as 
a  new  divinity.  Much  more  important  than  the 
law  of  struggle  is  the  law  of  association — the  law  of 
mutual  aid,  which  is  the  chief  factor  in  evolution, 
— but  the  philosophy  of  force  has  ignored  this 


oo8     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

more  important  law  almost  entirely  because  its 
advocates  have  concentrated  their  attention  upon 
the  combats  between  individuals  which  are  of 
different  and  non-associable  species  and  therefore 
naturally  enemies. 

As  a  result  of  this  one-sided  interpretation  of 
evolution,  a  powerful  support  has  been  given 
to  the  pessimistic  spirit  which  has  characterized 
so  much  of  nineteenth  century  philosophy.  With 
the  distortion  of  the  Darwinian  theory  and  the 
triumph  of  the  philosophy  of  force,  a  great  blight 
fell  upon  all  Christendom  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
century.  In  the  intellectual  life  of  the  western 
world  all  generous  impulses  towards  justice,  hu- 
manity, and  brotherhood,  all  the  idealism  which 
is  based  on  the  fundamental  social  instincts  of  the 
human  race,  and  to  a  large  extent  all  faith  in  relig- 
ion, were  crushed  out  by  the  resulting  avalanche 
of  materialism.  Yet  the  doctrines  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  force  are  purely  arbitrary  and  erroneous 
and  their  overthrow  awaits  only  the  rational  and 
scientific  study  of  the  facts  of  that  evolutionary 
theory  which  the  philosophy  of  force  claims  for  its 
scientific  foundation. 

In  reality  alliance  and  combat  are  parallel 
phenomena  and  in  Nature  that  combination 
results,  which  in  each  case  favours  the  maximum 
of  vital  intensity.  Certain  individuals  and  groups 
are  able  to  associate  with  each  other  and  certain 
others  are  not.  The  basic  error  of  the  philosophy 
of  force  consists  in  considering  only  the  latter  and 


Association  Increases  Vital  Intensity  309 

forgetting  entirely  the  former.  Since  the  groups 
capable  of  association  are  at  least  as  numerous  as 
those  which  cannot  associate,  the  basic  error  of  the 
philosophy  of  force  is  one-sided  reasoning.  It  sees 
Nature  only  from  one  point  of  view  and  there- 
fore sees  it  falsely.  As  soon  as  we  consider  that 
association  includes  all  living  beings  from  the  most 
invisible  infusoria  up  to  man,  we  can  imagine  what 
an  enormous  mass  of  facts  it  has  completely  ignored. 
The  philosophy  of  force  describes  dramatically 
the  innumerable  battles  which  have  been  fought 
since  remotest  antiquity  and  concludes,  as  a  result 
of  these  conflicts,  that  superior  types  have  been 
developed.  But  not  the  slightest  allusion  is  made 
to  the  fact  of  association.  The  question  is  never 
raised.  Why  are  certain  types  superior;  why  is 
man  superior  to  the  amoeba?  The  superiority 
comes,  of  course,  from  the  fact  that  man  is  an 
extremely  complex  association  of  trillions  of 
cellules,  while  the  amoeba  is  a  mono-cellular 
being.  The  philosophy  of  force,  however,  does 
not  consider  it  necessary  to  dwell  for  an  instant 
on  the  effect  which  association  could  have  upon 
the  perfection  of  the  species.  It  is  evident  that 
even  if  mono-cellular  beings  had  massacred  each 
other  with  a  hundred  times  the  rapidity  that  we 
observe  in  Nature,  they  would  not  have  made  the 
slightest  progress  if  they  had  not  been  associated. 
If  the  philosophers  of  force  had  not  pretended  to 
raise  a  scientific  structure  upon  such  a  unilateral 
foundation,   they  would  not   have  forgotten  the 


310     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

phenomena  of  association  at  any  of  the  phases  of 
vital  evolution  and  as  a  result  they  would  have  been 
compelled  to  perceive  that  the  relations  between 
associable  beings  are  different  from  those  between 
non-associable  beings. 

Although  we  live  within  an  association,  compara- 
tively few  persons  comprehend  its  true  nature. 
We  always  experience  the  greatest  difficulty  in 
*  observing  in  any  scientific  and  objective  manner 
the  phenomena  of  which  we  are  an  integral  part. 
I  The  elementary  truth  is  hardly  recognized  that 
.  association  is  only  a  means  serving  to  increase  the 
vital  intensity  of  the  individual.  Society  exists 
only  for  the  benefit  of  its  members,  not  its  mem- 
bers for  the  benefit  of  society.  This  fact  is  ignored 
entirely  by  the  philosophy  of  force.  The  error 
is  emphasized  in  that  theory  of  the  State,  which  is 
set  forth  by  von  Treitschke  and  is  common  among 
all  defenders  of  militarism.  They  forget  entirely 
that  great  as  may  be  the  efforts  made  for  the 
prosperity  of  the  State,  yet  the  claims  of  the  State 
are  nothing  in  themselves  and  become  something 
only  in  so  far  as  they  embody  the  claims  of  its 
component  individuals.  This  is  the  significance 
of  the  factor  of  mutual  aid.  It  results  in  an 
increase  of  vital  intensity  for  those  who  employ  it. 
This  is  the  reason  that  it  is  the  chief  factor  of  evolu- 
tion among  beings  capable  of  association.  Since 
the  increase  of  vital  intensity  is  the  direct  object 
of  mutual  aid,  we  can  understand  why  evolution 
is  so  much  more  rapid  in  a  society  of  associable 


Mutual  Aid  a  Multiplication  of  Power  311 

beings,  than  it  is  among  non-associable  beings, 
where  struggle  is  the  dominant  factor,  and  evolu- 
tion only  an  accidental  by-product  of  the  process. 

Association    derives   its   importance   from   the   ^ 
fact  that  it  leads  not  only  to  an  addition  of  vital  r 
power  but  to  a  multiplication  of  this  power.      Ten^ 
men  associated  together  do  not  produce  ten  times 
as  much  as  the  ten  men  separately,  but  produce 
a  hundred  or  more  times  as  much.      The  example 
given   by   the  economist,  Jean   Baptiste  Say,  in 
regard  to  the  manufacture  of  playing  cards,  is  well 
known.     He  found  that  if  every  workman  made 
the  entire  card  himself,  he  could  produce  two  cards 
a  day,  but  thirty  workmen,  organized  and  divid- 
ing the  labour,  manufacture  15,000  a  day,  or  500 
cards  each.     Association,  therefore,  increased  the 
productive  power  of  each  workman  250  times. 

In  more  complex  processes  of  production  the 
ratio  is  even  greater.  If  one  man  had  to  manufac- 
ture an  entire  automobile  alone,  it  would  take  him 
many  years,  possibly  it  might  require  a  lifetime, 
yet  20,000  men  in  the  Ford  factory  at  Detroit, 
practising  division  of  labour  and  specializing  on 
the  different  processes  of  production,  can  produce 
more  than  1,000  automobiles  per  day,  or  at  the 
rate  of  one  automobile  every  twenty  days  for 
each  workman.  This  marvellous  multiplication  of 
productive  power  can  be  obtained  only  by  associa- 
tion, because  association  although  taking  place 
under  a  thousand  different  aspects,  is  always  a 
multiplication  of  vital  power. 


312     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

In  the  embryonic  stage,  when  the  germinal  cellule 
divides  itself  into  two,  then  four,  then  eight  cells, 
and  so  on,  in  order  to  produce  in  the  course  of  a  few 
months  the  trillions  of  cellules  of  the  human  body, 
the  multiplication  of  vital  power  which  results  is  an 
effect  of  this  same  process  of  association.  If  these 
cellules  separated  from  each  other  as  fast  as  they 
were  formed,  as  is  the  case  among  the  protozoas, 
their  vital  power  would  not  be  increased,  but  by 
remaining  united  they  produce  a  being  whose 
vital  power  is  enormous.  As  the  result  of  this 
combination  each  cellule  forming  part  of  a  very 
complex  organization  has  a  vital  power  infinitely 
superior  to  that  of  the  mono-cellillar  organisms. 
In  addition  to  his  physiological  growth,  man  can 
grow  psychologically  (increasing  his  knowledge) 
and  economically  (increasing  his  wealth)  and 
go  on  until  old  age  developing  his  vital  powers. 
And  the  increase  of  intellectual  and  economic 
power  is  most  rapid  for  the  man  who  lives  in  the 
society  which  is  largest  and  best  organized,  that  is, 
for  the  man  who  is  part  of  the  most  perfect  as- 
sociation. 

Darwin  has  shown  that  the  cause  of  the  low 
morality  among  savages  is  due  to  the  narrow  limits 
of  association,  and  that  a  necessary  condition  for 
higher  standards  of  morality  is  the  extension  of 
the  area  over  which  the  moral  law  is  applied. 
It  follows  from  the  law  of  acceleration,  which 
comes  into  operation  wherever  a  constant  force 
acts  in  the  same  direction,  that  not  only  morality, 


Association  is  Exaltation  of  Life    313 

jDut  also  the  increase  of  intelligence  and  of  wealth 
will  be  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  the  associa- 
tion. As  long  as  man  is  a  member  of  a  small  tribe, 
consisting  of  a  score  of  individuals,  the  increase  in 
his  intelligence  and  his  fortune  must  be  slow. 
When  the  whole  human  race  shall  form  a  single 
organized  group,  the  increase  of  the  intelligence 
and  the  riches  of  each  inhabitant  of  the  world  will 
be  the  most  rapid  possible.  The  problem  of 
extending  the  limits  of  the  moral  law  until  it  in- 
cludes all  humanity  becomes  therefore  the  central 
problem  of  all  social  progress. 

Association  and  the  intensification  of  life  are  -J 
identical  facts.  We  can  trace  the  process  from 
the  lowest  to  the  highest  ranges  of  life.  In  the 
vegetable  and  animal  kingdom,  cellules  associate 
themselves  into  organisms.  Then  animals  asso- 
ciate themselves  into  groups  of  varying  extent. 
The  biological  and  sociological  processes  are  of 
exactly  the  same  nature.  One  is  the  continuation 
of  the  other  without  the  least  trace  of  a  break.  One 
of  the  most  difficult  questions  which  the  naturalist 
has  to  solve  is  to  determine  in  certain  cases  whether 
a  living  organism  is  an  individual  or  a  collection  of 
individuals,  i.  e.,  a  colony.  The  question  of  indi- 
viduality is  widely  recognized  as  one  of  the  most 
difficult  in  biology.  However,  all  these  phe- 
nomena which  take  on  such  extraordinarily  com- 
plex forms  are  the  resultants  of  a  single  effort  and 
a  single  tendency:  the  exaltation  of  the  vital 
intensity  of  the  units  which  make  up  the  associa- 


314     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

tion.  Association  is  always  a  means.  The  vital 
intensity  of  the  component  units  of  the  association 
is  the  end. 

Association  produces  an  exaltation  of  life  because 
the  functions  are  carried  on  simultaneously.  At 
the  same  time  that  the  lungs  breathe  air  and  the 
stomach  digests  food,  the  brain  thinks.  As  the 
result  of  the  association  of  cellules,  each  of  them 
profits  immediately  from  the  favourable  results 
of  all  three  actions.  It  is  as  if  each  cellule  ac- 
complished at  the  same  time  the  function  of  oxi- 
dation, assimilation,  and  cerebration.  Since  it 
accomplishes  in  this  way  and  in  an  indirect  manner 
a  larger  number  of  functions,  the  cellule  which  is 
part  of  a  collective  organism  lives,  naturally,  with 
a  greater  intensity.  Exactly  the  same  results  take 
place  in  society.  Individually  I  may  not  have  any 
direct  part  in  the  extraction  of  coal  from  the  mines 
of  the  earth,  or  in  the  scientific  researches  which 
have  for  their  object  the  discovery  of  a  more 
perfect  electric  light,  but  as  a  result  of  human 
association  and  the  division  of  labour,  it  is  as  if  I 
had  a  part  in  the  work,  because  in  a  certain  meas- 
ure I  enjoy  the  advantages  which  they  produce. 
Innumerable  other  concrete  examples  might  be 
given  to  demonstrate  that  association  is  a  process 
which  augments  the  vital  powers  of  the  individual. 

The  philosophy  of  force  fails  even  to  compre- 
hend the  essential  nature  of  struggle  which  it  has 
made  in  theory  the  corner-stone  of  the  structure 
of  society.     Struggle  is  not  the  object  of  life.     The 


All  Progress  Due  to  Mutual  Aid  315 

object  is  enjoyment,  satisfaction,  happiness.  If  as- 
sociation produces  more  enjoyment  than  struggle,  > 
association  will  take  place.  Nature  is  supremely 
indifferent  in  regard  to  the  choice  of  processes. 
The  advantage  is  found  on  the  side  of  that  process 
which  favours  most  the  greatest  intensification  of 
life.  Struggle  cannot  produce  as  powerful  an 
exaltation  of  vital  force  as  that  which  can  be  pro- 
duced by  association.  As  a  consequence  we  find 
that  association  dominates  in  an  immense  number 
of  cases.  It  is  estimated  by  the  naturalist  that 
there  are  on  the  earth  150,000  species  of  plants  and 
100,000  species  of  animals.  When  we  consider  the 
enormous  number  of  individuals  which  constitute 
certain  species,  the  number  of  associations  which 
exist  on  the  planet  must  be  counted  by  billions 
of  billions,  since  every  metazoa  is  an  association. 
Kropotkin  tells  how  his  attention  was  called  to 
the  futility  of  struggle  and  the  effectiveness  of 
mutual  aid  as  a  factor  of  evolution,  by  his  observa- 
tions of  the  garrison  of  a  city  which  had  undergone 
a  long  and  severe  siege.  As  a  result  of  this  severe 
struggle,  many  of  the  garrison  died  during  the 
course  of  the  siege,  and  when  they  were  at  last 
relieved,  instead  of  any  progress  taking  place  as  a 
consequence  of  the  prolonged  struggle,  all  of  the 
survivors  were  so  greatly  weakened  by  the  priva- 
tion and  hardship  which  they  had  undergone,  that 
they  fell  victims  to  disease  and  either  died  or 
suffered  from  a  greatly  weakened  vitality  for  the 
remainder  of  their  lives.     It  is  evident  that  no 


3i6     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

advance  over  previous  conditions  could  take  place 
as  the  result  of  a  struggle  which  means  weakness 
and  retrogression  for  all  the  individuals  compelled 
to  submit  to  this  struggle.  Whenever  advance 
takes  place  it  must  be  because  of  factors  other 
than  struggle.  It  must  be  as  the  result  of  an 
exaltation  of  life  and  well-being,  and  the  most 
effective  way  of  increasing  this  well-being  and 
intensity  of  life  is  through  mutual  aid.  At  the 
very  most  then,  struggle  can  only  serve  to  select 
out  advances  which  have  been  made  as  a  result  of 
other  factors,  especially  mutual  aid,  and  it  is  in 
this  factor  that  the  cause  of  progress  must  be 
found. 

As  a  result  of  the  exaltation  of  struggle  as  the 
summum  honum  by  its  fervent  and  enthusiastic 
worshippers,  the  dominant  philosophy  of  the 
Western  civilization  has  tended  to  become  largely 
a  philosophy  of  despair,  of  pain,  and  of  suffering. 
But  with  the  scientific  study  of  social  facts,  with 
the  discovery  that  the  role  of  association  and 
mutual  aid  is  much  more  important  than  that  of 
struggle,  and  that  both  these  are  subsidiary  to  the 
great  evolutionary  principle  of  the  expansion  of 
life,  will  come  a  return  to  the  philosophy  of  happi- 
ness, of  hope,  and  of  progress.  This  result  in  social 
theory  will  be  one  of  the  most  important  gains  of 
the  intellectual  revolution. 

Proceeding  from  the  idea  that  struggle  is  the 
cause  of  progress,  the  philosophy  of  force  has  con- 
cluded that  the  greater  the  intensity  of  the  struggle 


Alliance  the  First  Law  of  Nature  317 

the  more  rapid  will  be  the  progress.^  This  con- 
clusion neglects  completely  the  phenomena  of  alli- 
ance, but  alliance  is  a  more  universal  phenomena 
than  struggle.  The  philosophy  of  force  thus 
represents  a  deviation  from  the  truth  on  account 
of  its  unilateral  point  of  view.  It  overlooks  the 
fact  that  struggle  must  always  take  place  between 
collectivities.  The  struggle  between  a  man  and 
a  lion  is  in  reality  the  struggle  between  some  460 
trillions  of  cellules  of  the  association  man,  and  the 
440  to  450  trillions  of  cellules  of  the  association 
lion.  In  the  same  way  in  human  relations  the 
struggle  of  France  against  Germany  is  the  struggle 
of  two  collectivities  and  implies  the  existence  of 
these  collectivities.  From  this  point  of  view 
struggle  is  impossible  if  it  has  not  been  preceded 
by  an  alliance.  It  follows  that  association  is  the 
primordial,  and  consequently  the  most  important 
phenomenon. 

When  association  is  recognized  at  all  in  the 
philosophy  of  force,  its  importance  is  belittled. 
Professor  Lemeere,  rector  of  the  Free  University 
of  Brussels,  represents  a  modification  which  the 
"social  Darwinists"  have  been  compelled  to 
make  in  their  views  since  the  publication  of 
Kropotkin's  work: 

'  If  we  bring  this  theory  to  the  test  of  concrete  facts,  the  most 
rapid  progress  should  be  found  in  those  nations  where  struggle 
is  most  intense,  such  as  Turkey,  Venezuela,  and  Mexico.  But  the 
accepted  tests  of  social  progress  would  hardly  rank  these  countries 
ahead  of  nations  like  Switzerland  or  Sweden,  which  have  not  had 
a  war,  either  foreign  or  civil,  for  more  than  a  century. 


31 8     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

The  naturalists  represent  the  earth  to  us  as  an  im- 
mense battle-field  on  which  all  living  beings  struggle 
violently  against  each  other,  producing  a  frightful 
competition.  Reacting  against  such  an  assertion, 
Kropotkin  has  fallen  into  the  opposite  error,  in  wish- 
ing to  make  us  believe  that  mutual  aid  is  the  law 
which  rules  the  relations  of  organisms.  Mutual  aid 
is  a  reality,  but  far  from  existing  among  all  living 
beings,  it  is  solely  an  appendage  of  a  very  small 
number  of  animals  which  have  a  complicated  psy- 
chology, such  as  birds  and  the  mammals,  and  it  is  also 
the  common  law  of  all  the  animal  societies,  in  which 
progress  is  always  accompanied  by  an  evolution 
of  solidarity/ 

The  law  of  mutual  aid  is  certainly  more  than 
"the  appendage  of  a  very  small  number  of  ani- 
mals." It  is  a  universal  fact  in  nature  and  is 
common  to  all  living  beings  which  are  composed 
of  more  than  one  cell — all  the  metazoas.  Neither 
struggle  nor  mutual  aid  is  "the  law  which  rules 
the  relations  of  organisms."  It  is  both  struggle 
and  mutual  aid,  each  in  proportion  as  it  contributes 
to  the  increase  of  vital  intensity.  Certainly  the 
picture  of  Nature  which  the  naturalists  present  to 
us  is  not  an  idyll.  A  world  in  which  millions  of 
beings  can  only  live  as  the  result  of  the  destruction 
of  millions  of  beings  of  other  species  is  certainly 
not  the  ideal  world  which  our  humanitarian  im- 
pulses would  lead  us  to  construct  if  we  had  the 

» Lemeere,  Discourse  at  the  opening  of  the  Free  University 
of  Brussels,  1907,  Oct.  14. 


Inexorable  Need  for  Mutual  Aid  319 

power.  But  when  the  philosophy  of  force  draws 
the  conclusion,  "the  world  is  not  an  idyllic  place, 
therefore  men  ought  to  massacre  each  other  until 
the  end  of  time, "  this  therefore  causes  a  revolt  in 
all  persons  with  the  scientific  spirit.  The  struggle 
between  individuals  who  are  not  associable  does 
not  prevent  alliance  between  individuals  who  are 
associable  from  being  a  reality.  Combats  such  as 
those  between  spiders  and  flies  and  millions  of 
other  similar  forms  of  struggle  which  take  place 
every  minute  do  not  prevent  the  federation  of  the 
human  race,  or  delay  it  for  an  instant,  any  more 
than  it  is  delayed  by  the  continual  killing  of  cattle 
and  sheep  which  is  carried  on  every  day  in  the 
stockyards.  In  nature  we  see  associations  formed 
everywhere  in  order  to  combat  disadvantageous 
conditions  of  the  environment.  And  humanity 
is  subject  to  the  same  imperious  necessity  as  the 
other  species.  If  the  earth  were  a  paradise,  in 
which  eternal  spring  reigned  and  ripe  fruits  fell 
into  men's  mouths,  it  might  be  possible  for  each 
individual  to  live  isolated  and  enjoy  the  most 
complete  happiness.  But  it  is  because  the  world 
is  not  an  idyllic  place  that  association  with  our  own 
kind  has  become  inevitable,  since  it  is  a  question 
of  life  or  of  death.  An  environment  in  which 
250,000  victims  may  be  buried  under  ruins  as  the 
result  of  an  earthquake,  or  in  which  millions  of 
lives  may  be  wiped  out  by  a  flood,  with  its  ensuing 
famine  and  disease,  is  certainly  not  a  world  at  the 
height  of  perfection,  but  it  is  precisely  in  order 


320     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

to  gain  the  victory  over  these  disadvantageous 
conditions  that  mutual  aid  is  indispensable. 

Of  course  struggle  is  a  reality,  but  what  astrono- 
mer would  be  so  stupid  as  to  affirm  that  the  celes- 
tial systems  are  formed  solely  by  centrifugal  force? 
Scientific  astronomy  affirms,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  sidereal  systems  are  the  resultants  of  centri- 
fugal and  centripetal  force,  or  rather  of  the  proper 
equilibrium  between  these  two.  In  the  same  way 
evolution  is  the  result  of  association  between 
associable  individuals  as  well  as  the  struggle 
between  species  which  are  naturally  enemies.  As- 
sociation is  life ;  dissociation  is  death.  Certainly 
death  is  a  universal  phenomenon,  but  so  is  life. 
To  maintain  that  progress  is  uniquely  the  re- 
sult of  death  and  never  of  life,  as  is  done  in  the 
philosophy  of  force,  is  unsustainable. 

The  philosophy  of  force  is  the  negation  of  soci- 
A  ology  because  it  denies  that  association  is  one  of 
the  fundamental  phenomena  of  the  science.  When 
it  is  affirmed  that  progress  results  from  homicide, 
this  amoimts  to  the  claim  that  progress  results  from 
dissociation.  Moreover,  homicide  is  a  physio- 
logical act;  since  it  is  the  suppression  of  the  life 
of  an  individual .  From  this  special  point  of  view, 
therefore,  the  philosophy  of  force  is  the  negation 
of  sociology  because  it  attributes  all  progress  not 
to  the  complex  play  of  social  facts  (which  reduce 
themselves  in  the  last  analysis  to  interpsychic 
facts)  but  to  a  physiological  fact.  In  reality 
sociology  is  the  science  of  human  symbiosis — the 


The  Science  of  Human  Symbiosis   321 

science  of  men  living  together  in  society.  The 
philosophy  of  force,  in  affirming  that  progress 
comes  from  the  opposite  of  symbiosis,  undermines 
the  very  foundations  of  the  social  sciences.  The 
more  closely  we  examine  the  actual  facts  of  social 
life,  the  more  difficult  it  is  to  understand,  how 
sociologists  like  Spencer  and  Ward  have  been  able 
to  enlist  themselves  in  support  of  the  errors  of  the 
distorted  "social  Darwinism." 

Since  struggle  is  a  universal  phenomenon  in 
nature  the  philosophy  of  force  has  concluded  that 
it  ought  also  to  be  found  within  human  society.  It 
has  then  established  the  fact  that  it  is  found  there 
and  from  this  it  has  proclaimed  an  irreducible 
antagonism  between  the  interests  of  the  individual 
and  the  interests  of  the  collectivity,  and  also 
between  the  interests  of  the  individuals  and  the 
interests  of  social  classes.  As  we  have  seen  in 
Chapter  II.  these  doctrines  of  the  philosophy  of 
force  are  very  old,  but  they  have  been  greatly 
strengthened  by  the  discovery  of  their  apparently 
scientific  foundation  in  "social  Darwinism."  The 
doctrines  have  been  developed  with  especial  power 
by  German  thinkers.  In  German  philosophy  we 
can  trace  clearly  two  important  currents  of  thought 
proceeding  from  the  philosopher  Hegel.  On  the 
one  side  Treitschke  applied  the  Hegelian  philoso- 
phy to  the  theory  of  the  State  and  created  the 
intellectual  foundation  for  what  is  becoming  widely 
known  as  Prussianism,  which  regards  the  good  of 
the  State  of  as  something  quite  apart  from  the 


322     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

welfare  of  the  individuals  who  compose  it.  On  the 
other  side,  we  may  trace  the  influence  of  Hegel's 
philosophy,  combined  with  the  distorted  "social 
Darwinism"  in  the  so-called  scientific  socialism  of 
Karl  Marx.  The  old  Marxian  school  of  socialism 
has  made  the  struggle  of  the  classes  the  very  pivot 
of  the  evolution  of  the  human  race.  Moreover, 
the  philosophy  of  force  having  proclaimed  that 
the  struggle  is  most  severe  when  it  takes  place 
between  the  most  nearly  related  individuals,  the 
deduction  has  been  drawn  that  the  antagonism 
between  men  must  be  the  most  profound  which 
exists  in  the  world. 

The  single  fact  which  has  been  left  out  of  account 
in  all  the  theories  of  natural  antagonism  is  the 
phenomenon,  found  throughout  the  universe,  of 
association.  It  may  even  be  demonstrated  that 
if  there  were  a  natural  antagonism  which  is  irre- 
ducible between  men  in  society,  there  would  not 
exist  on  the  planet  either  a  plant  or  an  animal. 
For  the  assumption  that  antagonism  is  natural 
between  men  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  associa- 
tion did  not  produce  a  multiplication  of  vital 
power  or  an  enlargement  of  life.  If  this  were  the 
case  no  biological  association  would  have  been  able 
to  form,  since  the  object  of  biological  association, 
as  of  human  association,  is  the  increase  of  vital 
power,  the  expansion  of  life.  Consequently  neither 
plants  nor  animals  would  exist.  If  the  antagonism 
between  men  were  inherent  in  the  nature  of  things, 
if  homo  homini  lupus  were  true,  this  would  signify 


Antagonism  between  Men  Unnatural  323 

that  the  association  of  men  did  not  produce  the 
exaltation  of  life.  Therefore  no  human  associa- 
tion would  ever  have  been  formed,  and  society 
would  not  now  exist. 

If  we  consider  the  pretended  antagonism  be- 
tween the  individual  and  collectivity,  we  come 
immediately  upon  several  contradictions.  If  this 
antagonism  were  real,  evil  for  the  individual 
would  be  equivalent  to  good  for  the  collectivity. 
Therefore  death,  which  is  the  supreme  evil  for  the 
individual,  would  be  the  supreme  good  for  the 
collectivity.  In  other  words,  a  society  or  a  State 
would  attain  the  maximum  of  prosperity  when  all 
the  individuals  of  which  it  is  composed  should 
cease  to  live.  Or,  if  we  consider  it  in  the  inverse 
direction,  if  there  were  a  real  antagonism  between 
public  interest  and  private  interest,  the  day  in 
which  the  community  would  suffer  the  greatest 
possible  evil,  total  death,  would  be  that  on  which 
the  individuals  would  experience  the  greatest  good. 
In  other  words,  men  would  be  most  happy  when 
they  were  all  dead.  This  rednctio  ad  absurdum 
shows  the  essential  fallacy  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
antagonism  between  individuals  and  the  collec- 
tivity. 

But,  the  philosophy  of  force  maintains,  we  see 
the  antagonism  in  operation  everywhere  about  us. 
How  is  it  possible  to  affirm  at  the  same  time  that 
antagonism  exists  and  that  it  does  not  exist?  The 
Socialists  claim  that  they  do  not  strive  to  produce 
this  antagonism,  but  simply  draw  aside  the  veil 


324     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

and  let  the  world  see  the  antagonism  which  really 
exists.  What  is  the  way  out  of  this  apparently 
flat  contradiction? 

The  explanation  is  very  simple.  There  is  no 
opposition  of  interests  between  the  individual  and 
society.  The  opposition  is  solely  between  that 
which  appears  to  be  the  interest  of  the  individual 
and  that  which  is  really  his  interest.  It  seems  to 
us  that  there  is  an  antagonism  between  the  individ- 
ual and  society  because  we  see  falsely.  If  we 
could  see  the  truth,  this  imaginary  antagonism 
would  disappear  immediately.  The  opposition 
is  not  between  interests ;  the  opposition,  in  the  last 
analysis,  is  between  error  and  truth.  When  an 
elementary  knowledge  of  social  science  becomes 
the  common  possession  of  all  men,  when  the  ad- 
vantages of  association  and  the  object  of  the 
moral  law  as  the  basis  for  the  expansion  of  the  life 
of  the  individual  are  generally  understood,  the 
identity  of  the  interests  of  the  individual  and  of 
society  will  be  universally  realized  and  the  way 
will  be  open  for  the  greatest  advance  in  the  history 
of  the  human  race. 

The  same  reasoning  concerning  the  relations 
between  the  individual  and  the  collectivity  holds 
for  the  relations  between  individuals.  This  fol- 
lows from  the  fact  that  the  relations  between  the 
individual  and  the  collectivity  reduce  themselves  to 
the  relation  between  the  individual  and  a  great 
number  of  his  own  kind.  A  real  antagonism  is 
established  between  two  men,   Peter  and  Paul, 


Antagonism  Always  Due  to  Error   325 

only  when  Peter  wishes  to  commit  an  act  which  is 
contrary  to  his  true  interests,  and  therefore  solely 
from  the  moment  when  Peter  wishes  to  commit 
an  act  which  he  believes  is  in  accordance  with  his 
own  interests,  but  which  is  not  so  in  reality.  As 
long  as  men  wish  to  act  in  conformity  with  their 
real  interests,  no  antagonism  can  arise  between 
them  from  the  social  point  of  view.  This  fol- 
lows from  the  law  of  nature  that  association  aug- 
ments the  vital  intensity  of  the  units  of  which  it  is 
composed.  A  real  antagonism  between  individ- 
uals within  an  association  could  only  take  place 
in  a  case  where  the  association  did  not  increase  the 
vital  intensity  of  the  individual. 

It  is  well  known  that  both  Darwin  and  Wallace 
have  stated  that  they  were  indebted  to  Malthus  for 
the  idea  of  the  struggle  for  existence  as  a  factor  in 
natural  selection.  Spencer  took  over  much  of  his 
philosophy  of  struggle  unchanged  from  the  Mal- 
thusian  theory  also,  including  his  opposition  to 
charity  and  the  poor  laws.  The  significant  fact 
in  this  connection  is  that  Malthus  ignored  com- 
pletely the  phenomena  of  association  and  mutual 
aid  in  human  relations.  In  his  chapter  entitled 
"General  Deductions  from  the  Preceding  View 
of  Society,"  Malthus  sums  up  his  theory  in  the 
statement: 

That  the  checks  which  have  been  mentioned  are  the 
immediate  causes  of  the  slow  increase  of  population 


326     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

and  that  these  checks  result  principally  from  an 
insufficiency  of  subsistence .    .    .    .  ^ 

But  what  causes  insuf^ciency  of  subsistence?  Ac- 
cording to  Mai  thus  the  ultimate  limit  of  subsistence 
is  lack  of  space  on  the  earth  upon  which  food  can 
grow;  but  the  earth  has  never  yet  been  populated 
to  its  limits  and  this  cannot  be  the  ultimate  limit- 
ing factor  which  has  operated  in  the  past  or 
which  operates  at  the  present  time.  Malthus 
devotes  a  chapter  to  the  study  of  the  checks  to 
population  among  the  American  Indians  and  says : 

Under  such  circumstances,  that  America  should  be 
very  thinly  peopled  in  proportion  to  its  extent  of 
territory  is  merely  an  exemplification  of  the  obvious 
truth  that  population  cannot  increase  without  the 
food  to  support  it.^ 

But  the  same  continent  which  supported  with 
difficulty  a  few  thousand  Indians,  now  supports 
more  than  one  hundred  million  people,  still  in- 
creasing without  any  indications  of  pressing  upon 
the  limits  of  subsistence.  What  is  the  essential 
difference  between  the  wandering  tribes  of  Indians 
who  peopled  this  continent  a  few  centuries  ago, 
and  the  present  civilization,  which  produces  not 
only  enough  foodstuffs  for  its  own  use,  but  exports 

'  Malthus,  An  Essay  on  Population,  Everyman's  Library,  vol. 
i.,  p.  304. 

'  Idem.,  p.  26. 


The  Fallacy  of  Malthus  327 

several  hundred  millions  of  bushels  every  year  to 
Europe?  Evidently  it  is  not  a  difference  in  space. 
The  limits  of  the  continent  are  the  same  as  when 
it  was  inhabited  by  the  Indians.  The  difference 
is  in  the  institutions  of  the  two  civilizations,  and 
these  reduce  in  the  last  analysis  to  a  difference  in 
ideas.  Instead  of  being  divided  into  hundreds  of 
petty  tribes,  each  making  war  upon  the  other,  the 
present  population  of  the  North  American  con- 
tinent forms  practically  one  great  association, 
practising  mutual  aid  and  the  division  of  labour 
upon  an  enormous  scale.  It  is  the  same  with  all 
the  other  cases  considered  by  Malthus.  Every- 
where he  neglects  the  effects  of  institutions  and  of 
association  as  the  chief  factors  in  determining  the 
productivity  and  the  amount  of  subsistence  avail- 
able for  any  given  society. 

Malthus  emphasizes  repeatedly  the  fact  that 
population  tends  to  increase  in  a  geometric  ratio, 
but  he  fails  entirely  to  note  that  association  also  • 
increases  productivity  in  the  same  geometric  ratio, 
so  that  until  the  world  is  populated  up  to  its  limit 
(a  condition  which  will  probably  never  be  reached, 
on  account  of  the  declining  birth-rate  which 
everywhere  accompanies  advancing  civilization), 
the  productive  power  and  the  means  of  subsistence 
of  the  human  race  will  always  keep  ahead  of  the 
population.  This  fact  of  association  which  Malt- 
hus ignores,  completely  shatters  his  whole  theory. 
According  to  Malthus  the  means  of  subsistence 
can  only  be  increased  in  an  arithmetic  ratio  while 


328     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

population  increases  in  a  geometric  ratio,  so  that 
he  gets  the  following  series  of  numbers^: 

Population      i     2     4     8     16     32     64     128     256 
Subsistence     1234567         8        9 

But  the  true  theory,  if  we  take  into  account  the  law 
of  acceleration  whereby  ten  men  working  together 
and  practising  the  specialization  and  the  division 
of  labour,  produce  not  ten  times  as  much  as  each 
one  separately,  but  one  hundred  times  as  much, 
would  be  as  follows: 

Population  123     4     5     67     89     10 

Productive  power     i  49  16  25  36  49  64  81   100 

According  to  Malthus  every  increase  of  population 
results  in  a  decrease  of  prosperity  and  a  scarcity 
of  foodstuffs.  According  to  a  true  theory  of 
society,  which  takes  into  account  the  universal 
fact  of  association,  an  increase  of  population  with- 
in the  limits  of  an  association  should  result  in  an 
increase  of  productive  power  and  therefore  in  an 
increase  of  wealth,  and  this  is  what  we  see  actually 
happening  in  all  civilized  countries. 

Malthus  was  the  first  to  propose  the  hard  and 
pitiless  doctrine  afterwards  adopted  by  Spencer 
and  the  other  worshippers  of  the  anti-social,  anti- 
Christian  philosophy  of  force,  that  all  charity 
should  be  abolished  and  the  unfit  should  be  al- 
lowed to  go  to  the  wall.  He  states  his  conclusion 
as  follows : 

'T.  R.  Malthus,  An  Essay  on  Population,  vol.  i.,  pp.  10,  li. 


The  Survival  of  the  Unfit         329 

I  fe^  persuaded  that  if  the  poor-laws  had  never 
existed  in  this  country,  though  there  might  have  been 
a  few  more  instances  of  very  severe  distress,  the  aggre- 
gate mass  of  happiness  among  the  common  people 
would  have  been  much  greater  than  it  is  at  present.  ^ 

This  doctrine  has  been  especially  widespread 
among  those  who  are  only  too  ready  to  evade  their 
social  responsibilities  in  the  matter  of  poverty, 
and  have  found  it  a  convenient  means  for  quieting 
restless  consciences.  The  full  doctrine  has  been 
stated  by  Hobhouse  as  follows: 

The  true  problem  of  social  betterment  was  to 
determine  the  conditions  under  which  the  better 
qualities  are  propagated  and  the  worse  repressed. 
As  to  the  general  nature  of  these  conditions,  indeed, 
there  could  be  no  doubt  for  the  biologist.  .  .  .  The 
best  was  that  which  survived,  and  the  persistent 
elimination  of  the  least  fit  was  the  one  method  generally 
necessary  to  assure  the  survival  of  the  best.  .  .  .  Life 
was  constantly  and  necessarily  growing  better.  In 
every  species  the  least  fit  were  always  being  destroyed, 
and  the  standard  of  survivors  proportionately  raised. 
No  doubt  there  existed  even  in  human  society  many 
features  which  are  at  first  sight  objectionable.  But 
here  again  the  evolutionist  was  in  the  happy  position 
of  being  able  to  verify  the  existence  of  a  soul  of 
goodness  in  things  evil.  Was  there  acute  industrial 
competition?  It  was  the  process  by  which  the 
fittest   came   to   the   top.     Were   the   losers   in   the 

'  T.  R.  Malthus  An  Essay  on  Population,  Everyman's  Library, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  51. 


330     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

struggle  left  to  welter  in  dire  poverty?  They  would 
the  sooner  die  out.  Were  housing  conditions  a 
disgrace  to  civilization?  They  were  the  natural  en- 
vironment of  an  unfit  class,  and  the  means  whereby 
such  a  class  prepared  the  way  for  its  own  extinction. 
Was  infant  mortality  excessive?  It  weeded  out  the 
sickly  and  the  weaklings.  Was  there  pestilence  or 
famine?  So  many  more  of  the  unfit  would  perish. 
Did  tuberculosis  claim  a  heavy  toll?  The  tubercu- 
losis germs  are  great  selectors,  skilled  at  probing  the 
weak  spots  of  living  tissue.  Were  there  wars  and 
rumours  of  wars?  War  alone  would  give  to  the 
conquering  race  its  due,  the  inheritance  of  the  earth. 
It  would  maintain  the  efficiency  of  the  stronger  and 
erase  the  less  fit  from  the  roll  of  nations.  In  a  word 
the  only  blot  that  the  evolutionist  could  see  upon  the 
picture  was  the  misguided  enthusiasm,  the  "maudlin 
sentiment,"  to  use  a  favourite  expression,  which 
seeks  to  hold  out  a  hand  to  those  who  are  down,  and 
to  prolong  the  life  of  those  who  are  proved  unfit  to 
exist  by  the  fact  of  their  ill  success  in  the  struggle.^ 

The  fallacy  in  this  harsh  reasoning  has  been 
-'  exposed  by  Darwin.     Mutual  aid  is  the  great  sur- 
vival factor  in  human  society  and  the  possibility 
of  mutual  aid  is  due  to  certain  social  qualities, 
■"    without  which  it  could  not  exist.     Any  action 
which  tends  to  weaken  these  qualities,  by  harden- 
ing the  sympathies  of  the  individual  and  lowering 
/   the  moral  standards  of  society,  interferes  with  the 
action   of   association   and   prevents   the  benefit 

'  L.  T.  Hobhouse,  Social  Evolution  and  Political  Theory,  pp. 
20-2I. 


Sympathy  a  Survival  Factor      331 

which  might  be  derived  from  mutual  aid,  so  that 
the  loss  to  society  is  much  greater  than  any  pos- 
sible gain  through  the  killing  off  of  a  number  of 
the  physically  weak.  Darwin  emphasizes  the  im- 
portance of  these  charitable  actions,  which  tend 
to  take  the  form  in  modern  legislation  of  old  age 
pensions,  mothers'  pensions,  sickness  and  accident 
insurance,  and  other  social  measures,  as  follows : 

The  aid  which  we  feel  impelled  to  give  to  the  help- 
less is  mainly  an  incidental  result  of  the  instinct  of 
sympathy,  which  was  originally  acquired  as  part  of 
the  social  instincts,  but  subsequently  rendered,  in  the 
manner  previously  indicated,  more  tender  and  more 
widely  diffused.  Nor  could  we  check  our  sympathy, 
even  at  the  urging  of  hard  reason,  without  deteriora- 
tion in  the  noblest  part  of  our  nature.  The  surgeon 
may  harden  himself  while  performing  an  operation, 
for  he  knows  that  he  is  acting  for  the  good  of  his  pa- 
tient, but  if  we  were  intentionally  to  neglect  the  weak 
and  helpless,  it  could  only  be  for  a  contingent  benefit, 
with  an  overwhelming  present  evil.^ 

The  same  failure  to  understand  the  significance 
of  the  change  from  the  individual  to  the  group  as 
the  survival  unit,  and  the  resulting  paramount 
importance  of  mutual  aid  as  the  dominant  factor 
of  social  progress,  constitutes  the  fundamental 
error  in  the  writings  of  Nietzsche.  He  recog- 
nizes that  Darwin  has  discarded  struggle  as  the 
chief  factor  of  his  social  theory,   and  failing  to 

*  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  150. 


332     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

tinderstand  the  importance  of  mutual  aid,  he 
accuses  him  of  cowardice.  Thus  in  Beyond  Good 
and  Evil  he  says: 

All  modern  moralists  after  and  including  Darwin 
are  afraid  to  establish  a  moral  code  of  life  out  of  their 
concepts  of  struggle,  and  the  privileges  of  the  strong 
and  fit.  Like  Kant,  when  it  comes  to  practical  morals 
they  construct  systems  quite  independently  of  the 
question,  What  is  our  conception  of  the  universe? 
They  are  cowards. 

Nietzsche's  ideal  of  a  race  of  supermen,  of  the 
ascent  of  humanity  from  species  to  super-species, 
possesses  an  irresistible  attraction  for  the  hiunan 
spirit.  But  in  disregarding  the  fact  of  association 
and  relying  entirely  upon  struggle  he  built  his 
edifice,  as  all  the  social  structures  of  the  philosophy 
of  force  are  built,  upon  foundations  of  sand. 

To  those  who  know  Darwin's  devotion  to  truth 
and  his  courage  in  standing  by  his  convictions 
during  the  long  warfare  which  raged  between 
science  and  the  old  traditional  theology,  it  must  be 
clear  that  it  was  not  cowardice  which  prevented 
him  from  basing  his  theory  of  social  progress  upon 
struggle.  As  we  have  seen,  it  was  his  realization 
of  the  new  factors  of  evolution,  intellectual  and 
moral,  which  entered  into  play  and  assumed  the 
dominant  role  when  he  passed  from  the  biological 
to  the  social  realm. 

One  of  the  most  important  results  of  the  return 
to  the  true  Darwinian  theory  of  social  progress 


Mutual  Aid  and  Rise  of  Democracy    333 

will  be  the  establishment  of  democracy  and  religion 
upon  new  and  unshakable  scientific  foundations. 
The  philosophy  of  force,  which  is  anti-democratic, 
anti-social,  and  anti- Christian,  has  fallen  like  a 
blight  upon  the  intellectual  life  of  Christendom 
during  the  past  half-century,  but  its  effects  have 
been  almost  entirely  confined  to  the  aristocratic, 
intellectual,  and  governing  classes.  The  growing 
democratic  forces  of  the  labour  movement,  the 
social  democracy  of  the  European  countries,  and 
the  great  potential  forces  of  the  rise  of  woman  in  all 
countries  of  the  world,  represent  irresistible  social 
and  moral  forces  to  which  the  future  in  great  meas- 
ure belongs,  and  which  are  still  largely  untouched 
by  its  devastating  influence.  With  the  rise  into 
intellectual  and  political  power  of  these  groups, 
bringing  with  them  traditions  of  the  practise  of 
mutual  aid  and  the  intuitive  knowledge  of  its 
advantages,  we  may  expect  also  a  great  impetus 
toward  the  establishment  of  a  sounder  social 
philosophy,  which  will  prepare  the  way  for  a  renais- 
sance of  idealism  and  a  reconstruction  of  society 
on  a  truly  democratic  basis. 

Kropotkin,  in  his  conclusion,  has  traced  with 
rare  insight  the  manner  in  which  the  mutual-aid 
tendency  has  triumphed  over  all  the  crises  and 
obstacles  of  the  past,  and  its  promise  for  the  future 
of  the  race: 

The  mutual-aid  tendency  in  man  has  so  remote  an 
origin,  and  is  so  deeply  interwoven  with  all  the  past 


334     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

evolution  of  the  human  race,  that  it  has  been  main- 
tained by  mankind  up  to  the  present  time,  notwith- 
standing all  the  vicissitudes  of  history.  It  was  chiefly 
evolved  during  periods  of  peace  and  prosperity;  but 
when  even  the  greatest  calamities  befell  men — when 
whole  countries  were  laid  waste  by  wars,  and  whole 
populations  were  decimated  or  groaned  under  the 
yoke  of  tyranny — the  same  tendency  continued  to 
live  in  the  villages  and  among  the  poorer  classes  in 
the  towns ;  it  still  kept  them  together,  and  in  the  long 
run  it  reacted  even  upon  those  ruling,  fighting,  and 
devastating  minorities  which  dismissed  it  as  senti- 
mental nonsense.  And  whenever  mankind  had  to 
work  out  a  new  social  organization,  adapted  to  a  new 
phase  of  development,  its  constructive  genius  always 
drew  the  elements  and  the  inspiration  for  the  new 
departure  from  that  same  ever-living  tendency.  New 
economical  and  social  institutions,  in  so  far  as  they 
were  a  creation  of  the  masses,  new  ethical  systems,  and 
new  religions,  all  have  originated  from  the  same  source, 
and  the  ethical  progress  of  our  race,  viewed  in  its  broad 
lines,  appears  as  a  gradual  extension  of  the  mutual- 
aid  principles  from  the  tribe  to  always  larger  and  larger 
agglomerations  so  as  to  finally  embrace  one  day  the 
whole  of  mankind,  without  respect  to  its  divers 
creeds,  languages,  and  races.  ^ 

And  he  shows  the  vital  importance  of  mutual 
aid  as  the  foundation  of  ethics  and  of  all  religions : 

However,  it  is  especially  in  the  domain  of  ethics 
that  the  dominating  importance  of  the  mutual-aid 

'  Kropotkin,  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  chapter  vii., 
''Mutual  Aid  Amongst  Ourselves,"  p.  223. 


Mutual  Aid  the  Foundation  of  Ethics  335 

principle  appears  in  full.  That  mutual  aid  is  the  real 
foundation  of  our  ethical  conceptions  seems  evident 
enough.  But  whatever  the  opinions  as  to  the  first 
origin  of  the  mutual-aid  feeling  or  instinct  may  be, — 
whether  a  biological  or  a  supernatural  cause  is  ascribed 
to  it, — we  must  trace  its  existence  as  far  back  as  to  the 
lowest  stages  of  the  animal  world;  and  from  these 
stages  we  can  follow  its  uninterrupted  evolution,  in 
opposition  to  a  number  of  contrary  agencies,  through 
all  degrees  of  human  development,  up  to  the  present 
time.  Even  the  new  religions  which  were  born  from 
time  to  time — always  at  epochs  when  the  mutual-aid 
principle  was  falling  into  decay  in  the  theocracies  and 
despotic  States  of  the  East,  or  at  the  decline  of  the 
Roman  Empire — even  the  new  religions  have  only 
reaffirmed  that  same  principle.  They  found  their 
first  supporters  among  the  humble,  in  the  lowest, 
down-trodden  layers  of  society,  where  the  mutual-aid 
principle  is  the  necessary  foundation  of  every-day 
life ;  and  the  new  forms  of  union  which  were  introduced 
in  the  earliest  Buddhist  and  Christian  communities, 
in  the  Moravian  brotherhoods  and  so  on,  took  the 
character  of  a  return  to  the  best  aspects  of  mutual 
aid  in  early  tribal  life. 

Each  time,  however,  that  an  attempt  to  return  to 
this  old  principle  was  made,  its  fundamental  idea  itself 
was  widened.  From  the  clan  it  was  extended  to  the 
stem,  to  the  federation  of  stems,  to  the  nation,  and 
finally — in  ideal  at  least — to  the  whole  of  mankind. 
It  was  also  refined  at  the  same  time.  In  primitive 
Buddhism,  in  primitive  Christianity,  in  the  writings 
of  some  of  the  Mussulman  teachers,  in  the  early  move- 
ments of  the  Reform,  and  especially  in  the  ethical  and 
philosophical  movements  of  the  last  century  and  of 


33^     Mutual  Aid  as  a  Law  of  Nature 

our  own  times,  the  total  abandonment  of  revenge,  or 
of  "due  reward " — of  good  for  good  and  evil  for  evil — • 
is  affirmed  more  and  more  vigorously.  The  higher 
conception  of  "no  revenge  for  wrongs,"  and  of  freely 
giving  more  than  one  expects  to  receive  from  his 
neighbours,  is  proclaimed  as  being  the  real  principle 
of  morality — a  principle  superior  to  mere  equivalence, 
equity,  or  justice,  and  more  conducive  to  happiness. 
And  man  is  appealed  to,  to  be  guided  in  his  acts,  not 
merely  by  love,  which  is  always  personal,  or  at  the  best 
tribal,  but  by  the  perception  of  his  oneness  with  each 
human  being.  In  the  practice  of  mutual  aid,  which 
we  can  retrace  to  the  earliest  beginnings  of  evolution, 
we  thus  find  the  positive  and  undoubted  origin  of  our 
ethical  conceptions;  and  we  can  affirm  that  in  the 
ethical  progress  of  man,  mutual  support — not  mutual 
struggle — has  had  the  leading  part.  In  its  wide  ex- 
tension, even  at  the  present  time,  we  also  see  the  best 
guarantee  of  a  still  loftier  evolution  of  our  race,^ 

'  Kropotkin,  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution,  pp.  299-300. 


PART  III 
JUSTICE  AS  A  PRIME  SOCIAL  NEED 


337 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  RELATION  OF   MORALITY  AND  SELF-INTEREST* 

IN  the  Darwinian  theory  of  social  progress  moral- 
ity is  synonymous  with  the  welfare  of  the  com- 
munity and  therefore  with  the  greatest  expansion 
of  life  for  the  individual.  For  one  of  its  roots 
it  goes  back  through  the  social  instincts  and 
the  parental  affections  to  the  great  fundamental 
factor  of  love,  but  it  has  also  another  root  in  intel- 
ligence, which  brings  to  morality  a  powerful  re- 
enforcement  by  showing  that  it  is  identical  with 
the  highest  self-interest  of  the  individual. 

But  the  belief  is  almost  universal  that  morality 
and  self-interest  are  opposed,  not  only  in  the  case 
of  individuals,  but  in  the  case  of  groups  of  individ- 
uals or  nations.  A  moral  action  is  considered  to 
be  an  action  in  which  the  individual  sacrifices  his 
own  welfare  for  that  of  others,  and  is  therefore  an 
action  which  is  diametrically  opposed  to  his  own 
highest  interest.     Lord  Hugh  Cecil  has  clearly 

'  Novikov  has  replied  at  length  to  the  various  objections 
raised  against  this  view  of  enlightened  self-interest  as  the  rational 
basis  of  morality  in  his  La  morale  et  VinlerU  dans  les  rapports 
individuels  et  inter nationaux.     (Alcan,  Paris,  1912). 

339 


340        Morality  and  Self-interest 

stated  the  doctrine  in  its  international  fonn  as 
follows : 

Some  good  men  seem  inclined  to  maintain  that  the 
action  of  a  state  towards  other  states  ought  to  be  the 
same  as  the  action  of  an  individual  towards  other 
individuals.  But  this  contains  a  fallacy  which,  one 
might  think,  it  should  not  be  difficult  to  discern.  We 
personify  a  state,  but  a  state  is  not  a  person.  It  con- 
tains a  vast  number  of  persons,  and  those  who  speak 
in  its  name  and  determine  its  policy  act  not  for  them- 
selves but  for  others.  It  follows  that  all  that  depart- 
ment of  morality  which  requires  an  individual  to 
sacrifice  himself  to  others,  everything  which  falls 
under  the  heading  of  unselfishness,  is  inappropriate 
to  the  action  of  a  state.  No  one  has  a  right  to  be 
unselfish  with  other  peoples'  interests.  It  is  the  busi- 
ness of  every  ruler  to  exact  to  the  utmost  every  claim 
which  can  both  justly  and  wisely  be  made  on  behalf  of 
his  country.  He  is  in  the  position  of  a  trustee  of  the 
interests  of  others  and  must  be  just  and  not  generous.* 

This  idea  of  the  essential  opposition  between 
morality  and  the  highest  interest  of  the  individual 
or  the  nation,  characterizes  the  philosophy  of  force 
in  all  countries.  Prof.  R.  Broda  sums  up  Bis- 
marck's attitude  thus: 

Bismarck  declared  that  a  powerful  nation  could  not 
bind  itself  to  a  sentimental  policy,  but  that  it  ought  to 
obey  solely  its  own  interests,  in  other  words  that  it  is 
necessary  to  put  aside  all  those  things  which  individuals 

'  Lord  Hugh  Cecil,  "  Conservatism,"  pp.  200-202. 


State  Is  above  the  Moral  Law     341 


re- 


and  peoples  consider  as  sacred,  everything  which 
sponds  to  their  superior  instinct  of  justice.  ^ 

And  General  von  Bernhardi  repeats  the  same 
idea,  in  a  quotation  from  von  Treitschke: 

"  The  individual  must  sacrifice  himself  for  the  higher 
community  of  which  he  is  a  part,  but  the  state  is  the 
highest  conception  in  the  wider  community  of  man 
and  therefore  the  duty  of  self-annihilation  does  not 
enter  into  the  case."^ 


These  quotations  could  be  multiplied  by  a  score, 
all  of  them  showing  that  action  in  accordance 
with  justice,  that  is  to  say  with  morality,  appears 
to  be  contrary  to  self-interest.  Since  a  sacrifice 
is  made  in  acting  in  accordance  with  morality, 
since  justice  is  opposed  to  self-interest,  men  prefer 
not  to  sacrifice  themselves,  and  when  a  choice 
must  be  made  they  prefer  to  abandon  morality 
in  order  to  follow  their  own  self-interests.  And 
when  we  come  to  international  relations,  morality 
is  not  considered  to  be  applicable  because  in  these 
relations  the  safety  of  the  State  and  the  interest  of 
the  people  for  whom  the  statesman  is  acting  as 
guardian,  must  take  precedence  over  everything 
else.  From  this  point  of  view  then,  it  becomes  the 
highest  duty  of  a  statesman  to  act  in  an  immoral 
fashion,  because  only  in  this  way  can  he  serve  the 

'  Les  documents  du  progrh,  September,  1910,  p.  193. 
» Treitschke,    Politik,  vol.  i.,  §  3,    quoted   by   Bernhardi   in 
Germany  and  the  Next  War,  Powles'  translation,  4th  ed.,  p.  46. 


342         Morality  and  Self-interest 

highest  interests  of  the  people  for  whom  he  acts 
as  trustee.  From  the  practical  point  of  view  also, 
the  belief  in  the  irreducible  antagonism  between 
morality  and  the  highest  interests  of  the  nation, 
makes  it  necessary  for  the  statesman  to  act  in  an 
immoral  fashion,  under  penalty  of  being  dismissed 
from  office  and  being  replaced  by  a  statesman  who 
will  serve  what  appear  to  be  the  highest  interests 
of  the  people. 

When  Bismarck  concluded  the  Treaty  of  Frank- 
fort, which  gave  to  Germany  Alsace-Lorraine  and 
imposed  a  huge  war  fine  of  $1,000,000,000  upon 
conquered  France,  he  knew  that  he  was  not  acting 
in  accordance  with  the  moral  law  "Nations  should 
do  unto  nations  as  they  would  be  done  by." 
Certainly  Bismarck  would  not  have  wished  to  put 
himself  in  the  place  of  Jules  Favre.  It  is  even 
stated  that  Bismarck  was  unwilling  to  impose 
these  unjust  terms  upon  France  and  that  he  only 
consented  under  pressure.  What  impelled  Bis- 
marck to  act  in  this  immoral  fashion?  The  general 
belief  that  the  interests  of  his  country  were  op- 
posed to  the  moral  law,  and  that  in  this  conflict 
the  moral  law  ought  to  give  way.  Confronted 
with  the  alternative  of  conducting  themselves  in 
an  immoral  fashion  or  conducting  themselves  in 
conformity  with  their  highest  interests,  most 
men  shape  their  conduct  to  conform  with  their 
own  interests  and  sacrifice  morality. 

But  was  there  any  real  opposition  between  the 
highest  interests  of  the  German  people  and  the 


Moral  Law  in  International  Relations  343 

moral  law?  If  we  follow  the  inevitable  conse- 
quences of  the  Treaty  of  Frankfort,  we  find  the 
answer  to  this  question.  We  can  see  how  the 
injustice  committed  upon  France  led  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Revanche  party,  how  it  led  to  the 
Franco-Russian  Alliance,  to  forty-four  years  of 
insane  armament  competition  on  the  continent  of 
Europe,  and  how  it  led  finally  to  the  breakdown  of 
civilization  in  August,  1914.  In  the  face  of  such 
an  inevitable  chain  of  retribution  it  is  clear  that 
in  1 87 1  there  was  no  conflict  between  the  moral 
law  and  the  highest  interest  of  the  German  people, 
but  that  these  were  identical. 

Let  us  take  another  example.  In  1878  Lord 
Beaconsfield  went  to  the  Congress  of  Berlin  and 
brought  back  what  he  called  "peace  with  honour. " 
At  this  Congress  Lord  Beaconsfield  forced  the 
diplomats  to  tear  up  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano, 
which  had  regulated  the  boundaries  of  the  Balkan 
States  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  nation- 
ality, and  to  thrust  the  Balkan  peoples  back  under 
the  yoke  of  Turkey.  Certainly  Lord  Beacons- 
field knew  he  was  not  acting  in  accordance  with 
the  Golden  Rule.  He  would  not  have  wished 
any  nation  to  do  unto  England  what  he  did  unto 
the  Balkan  peoples,  but  he  considered  that  the 
interests  of  England  demanded  that  there  should 
be  a  strong  Turkey  holding  the  Dardanelles  and 
preventing  Russia  from  getting  access  to  warm 
water  and  menacing  the  route  to  India.  In  other 
words,  he  considered  that  the  highest  interests  of 


344        Morality  and  Self-interest 

the  British  people  were  in  conflict  with  the  moral 
law  and  in  this  conflict  the  moral  law  had  to  give 
way. 

Was  this  conflict  real?  If  we  follow  the  inevit- 
able chain  of  consequences,  we  can  again  find  the 
answer.  We  can  see  how  the  Treaty  of  Beriin, 
by  thrusting  the  Balkan  peoples  back  under  Turk- 
ish rule,  led  to  all  the  years  of  massacres  and 
atrocities  in  the  Balkans,  how  it  led  to  the  First 
Balkan  War,  to  the  Second  Balkan  War,  and  to 
the  world  war  which  began  in  August,  19 14,  and 
which  has  aptly  been  called  the  Third  Balkan  War. 
And  we  find  hundreds  of  thousands  of  the  flower 
of  the  British  Empire  laying  down  their  lives  in 
the  Balkans  and  the  Gallipoli  peninsula,  and  bil- 
lions of  treasure  poured  out  in  the  attempt  to 
open  the  Dardanelles  for  Russia,  after  Great 
Britain  had  fought  the  Crimean  War  with  Russia 
to  keep  this  passage  closed.  Was  there  any 
conflict  between  the  moral  law  and  self-interest, 
and  would  not  Lord  Beaconsfield  have  been  serv- 
ing the  highest  interests  of  his  people  if  he  had 
followed  the  Golden  Rule  and  allowed  the  Treaty 
of  San  Stefano  to  stand,  based  as  it  was  on  the 
principle  of  nationality,  to  which  sooner  or  later 
the  European  nations  will  have  to  come  as  the 
ultimate  settlement  of  the  Balkan  problem. 

Or  let  us  consider  an  example  from  the  western 
hemisphere.  In  1883,  after  the  war  in  which  Chile 
was  victorious  over  Peru,  a  treaty  was  signed  ac- 
cording to  which  Chile  should  retain  possession  of 


Retribution  Inevitable  345 

the  conquered  provinces  of  Tacna  and  Arica  for 
a  period  of  ten  years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  a 
plebiscite  should  be  taken  in  the  two  provinces 
to  determine  to  which  of  the  two  countries  the 
inhabitants  preferred  to  belong.  When  the  time 
arrived  for  taking  the  referendum,  the  Chileans 
refused  to  carry  out  their  agreement.  They  said 
in  effect,  "Might  makes  Right:  we  have  possession 
and  do  not  propose  to  sacrifice  the  interests  of  our 
nation.  In  the  conflict  between  self-interest  and 
morality,  morality  must  give  way. " 

When  we  follow  the  inevitable  train  of  retribu- 
tion from  this  immoral  act,  we  find  the  same 
answer  to  our  question.  The  result  of  this  act  of 
injustice  has  been  to  blacken  the  whole  subse- 
quent history  of  the  western  coast  of  South 
America.  The  armament  competition  between 
Chile  and  Peru  has  cost  a  hundred  times  over  the 
value  of  the  conquered  provinces,  and  conditions 
are  so  bad  today  that  a  Chilean  ship  cannot  stop 
at  a  Peruvian  port  or  a  Peruvian  ship  at  a  Chilean 
port  without  the  bitterness  and  hatred  breaking 
out  into  open  hostilities.  The  conditions  on  the 
west  coast  of  South  America  are  in  striking  contrast 
to  those  on  the  east  coast,  where  the  Argentine 
statesmen,  after  the  victorious  war  with  Para- 
guay, recognized  the  identity  of  morality  and  the 
highest  self-interests  of  the  nation  in  the  state- 
ment of  Argentine  policy  "Victory  gives  no  right. " 

A  growing  recognition  of  this  identity  between 
morality  and  the  highest  self-interests  of  a  nation 


346        Morality  and  Self-interest 

can  fortunately  be  traced  in  the  international 
relations  of  the  past  few  years.  The  action  of  the 
United  States  in  returning  a  large  part  of  the  Boxer 
indemnity  to  China,  and  President  Wilson's 
declaration  in  his  Mobile  speech  on  October  27, 
19 13,  that  "the  United  States  will  never  again 
seek  one  additional  foot  of  territory  by  conquest," 
are  illustrations  of  this  tendency.  And  even  the 
traditional  orthodox  diplomacy  of  Europe  is  begin- 
ning to  recognize  the  true  relations  between  moral- 
ity and  self-interest.  Thus  Winston  Churchill,  a 
member  of  the  British  Cabinet,  declared  in  an 
address  reported  in  the  London  Times,  of  Septem- 
ber 12,  1914: 

Now  the  war  has  come,  and  when  it  is  over  let  us 
be  careful  not  to  make  the  same  mistake  or  the  same 
sort  of  mistake  as  Germany  made  when  she  had 
France  prostrate  at  her  feet  in  1870.  (cheers)  Let 
us,  whatever  we  do,  fight  for  and  work  towards  great 
and  sound  principles  for  the  European  system. 

But  in  the  relations  of  individuals,  this  identity 
of  morality  and  self-interest  is  far  from  being. rec- 
ognized. For  nearly  twenty  centuries  it  has  been 
repeated  that  we  shoiild  love  our  neighbours  as 
ourselves,  but  very  few  persons  apply  this  precept. 
Why?  Because  it  is  not  believed  to  be  advan- 
tageous. What  purpose  would  it  serve  to  love 
one's  neighbour  as  one's  self?  What  benefits 
could  be  derived  from  this?  And  because  we  have 
not  been  able  to  see  any  possible  benefits,  we  now 


Why  Love  Our  Neighbour?      347 

find  more  than  one  half  the  world's  population 
engaged  in  collective  homicide  and  wholesale 
destruction,  while  even  in  times  of  peace,  in  Europe 
alone  more  than  four  millions  of  men  are  con- 
stantly under  arms  ready  to  attack  their  neigh- 
bours at  the  first  favourable  opportunity,  to 
massacre  them  and  to  seize  their  territory. 

The  blight  which  fell  upon  Christendom  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  which  was 
marked  by  the  triumph  of  materialism,  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  great  idealistic  forces  from 
public  life,  and  the  disintegration  of  religious  faith, 
may  be  traced  in  large  measure  to  the  gulf  which 
was  created  between  reason  and  morality  by  the 
development  of  pseudo-scientific  "social  Darwin- 
ism." As  the  result  of '  the  triumph  of  true  Dar- 
winism and  of  the  real  scientific  spirit,  all  other 
realms  of  human  life  and  activity  have  been  ra- 
tionalized and  given  a  scientific  foundation.  Re- 
ligion and  morality  alone  remained  upon  the  old 
basis  of  authority  and  divine  command,  and  the' 
belief  in  the  fundamental  contradiction  between 
morality  and  the  highest  self-interest  became 
almost  imiversal. 

Various  methods  of  escape  from  the  dualism 
created  by  the  rise  of  the  philosophy  of  force  have 
been  sought.  For  a  great  number  of  modern 
men,  educated  in  scientific  thinking,  the  path 
opened  by  the  monistic  movement  under  the 
leadership  of  Haeckel,  which  rejects  religion  and 
morality  and  takes  reason  and  science  as  the  sole 


348        Morality  and  Self-interest 

guide,  has  constituted  a  solution.  The  tradi- 
tional moralists  like  G.  K.  Chesterton,  representing 
the  view  of  the  orthodox  Catholic  Church,  have 
sought  to  find  a  solution  in  a  return  to  the  Middle 
Ages,  frankly  rejecting  the  discoveries  of  modern 
science  and  calling  Darwin  a  charlatan.  And  even 
enlightened  spirits  like  Tolstoi,  breaking  away 
from  the  orthodox  Christianity  of  creeds  and  dog- 
mas, compelled  to  face  the  conflict  between  deep- 
lying  social  instincts  and  intellectual  convictions, 
have  been  able  to  find  a  solution  only  by  abandon- 
ing reason  as  a  guide  and  relying  solely  upon 
intuition  and  faith.  Tolstoi  has  stated  the 
dilemma  clearly  as  follows: 

Would  reason  ever  have  proved  to  me  that  I  ought 
to  love  my  neighbour  instead  of  choking  him?  I 
was  taught  it  in  my  childhood,  but  I  believed  it  gladly 
because  it  was  already  existent  in  my  soul.  Reason 
discovered  the  struggle  for  existence, — that  law  which 
demands  the  overthrow  of  every  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
our  desires ;  that  is  the  result  of  reason ;  but  reason  has 
nothing  to  do  with  loving  our  neighbour.  ^ 

From  this  accepted  antagonism  between  moral- 
ity and  interest  arises  the  pronounced  current  of 
hostility  against  the  moralists.  They  are  con- 
sidered as  theorists — visionaries  living  in  the  clouds 
far  above  the  practical  realities  of  life.  What  they 
preach  is  admitted  to  be  very  beautiful,  but  only 
when  it  has   no   direct   application.     When   the 

»  Tolstoi,  Anna  Karenina,  p.  750. 


Three  Possible  Cases  349 

moralists  repeat  their  precepts,  practical  men  listen 
with  impatience,  and  say,  in  effect,  "the  same 
eternal  outworn  old  sayings  which  have  been 
repeated  from  time  immemorial  and  which  mean 
nothing."  They  shake  their  heads  and  pass  on. 
And  when  the  moralist,  convinced  of  the  disastrous 
effect  of  the  appeal  to  the  instrument  of  force, 
redoubles  his  efforts,  and  goes  on  to  declare,  "If 
you  are  struck  upon  one  cheek,  turn  the  other 
also,"  then  with  the  evidence  of  such  folly  before 
them  it  is  no  longer  good-natured  intolerance 
which  is  expressed,  but  open  hostility  and  hatred. 
Morality  is  regarded  in  this  case  as  an  obstacle  to 
our  happiness.  It  becomes  an  enemy.  As  a 
result  of  the  conviction  of  the  fundamental 
opposition  between  morality  and  self-interest, 
men  who  act  in  accordance  with  the  moral  law  are 
looked  upon  with  disdain  and  are  considered  as 
feeble  and  timid,  while  those  who,  like  Napoleon 
and  Bismarck,  placed  self-interest  beyond  all 
ethical  considerations  are  regarded  as  political 
geniuses  and  heroes. 

The  supposed  opposition  between  morality  and 
self-interest  results  from  the  failure  of  the  human 
race  to  understand  the  advantages  of  association 
and  the  importance  of  the  factor  of  mutual  aid  in 
increasing  the  vital  intensity  of  the  individual. 
The  chain  of  cause  and  effect  which  proceeds  from 
the  moral  action  of  the  individual  to  the  welfare  of 
the  society  or  community  of  which  he  is  a  part,  and 


350        Morality  and  Self-interest 

then  returns  to  increase  the  fulness  of  his  own  Hfe, 
has  never  been  worked  out  rationally  in  sufficient 
detail,  and  the  elementary  facts  of  social  science 
are  known  only  in  a  vague  and  intuitive  manner. 

A  logical  analysis  will  prove  that  there  is  no 
contradiction  between  morality  and  self-interest. 
The  result  of  a  moral  action  must  be  one  of  three 
things.  Either  it  is  a  benefit  for  the  individual 
who  acts  morally  or  it  is  indifferent  and  has  no 
result  or  it  is  injurious.  In  the  first  case  the  moral 
action  is  in  accord  with  the  self-interest  of  the 
individual  and  the  supposed  opposition  is  untrue. 
The  second  possible  case  reduces,  on  analysis,  to 
the  third,  because  indifference  is  an  abstract  state 
which  does  not  exist  when  we  consider  concrete 
realities.  An  action  without  any  consequence  is 
time  lost  and  therefore  disadvantageous,  if  for  no 
other  reason  than  because  it  prevents  the  achieve- 
ment of  the  good  which  might  have  been  attained 
in  the  time  lost.  If  then  an  action  does  not  have  a 
useful  result,  by  this  very  fact  it  has  an  injurious 
result.  The  whole  problem  reduces  then  to  the 
last  case.  If  morality  and  self-interest  are  not 
identical,  then  all  moral  action  is  injiu"ious  to  the 
individual  who  performs  the  action. 

But  this  last  case  leads  to  a  direct  contradic- 
tion of  terms.  If  a  moral  action  could  have  an 
injurious  result  for  those  who  commit  it  and  if 
under  these  conditions  all  men  were  moral,  they 
would  constantly  be  injuring  themselves  by  their 
moral  actions  and  would  ultimately  perish.     Mor- 


Morality  and  Self-interest  Identical  351 

ality  would  consist  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of 
individuals ;  a  moral  society  would  be  one  in  which 
every  individual  sacrifices  his  own  interest;  and 
the  maximum  of  morality  would  be  reached  in  a 
society  in  which  the  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  the 
individuals  resulted  in  the  destruction  of  the 
individuals  and  of  the  society  itself.  The  result 
would  be  that  morality  would  have  as  its  object 
the  suppression  of  life.  When  we  are  told  then 
that  a  moral  action  cannot  have  an  advantageous 
result  for  the  one  who  commits  it,  it  is  as  if  we  were 
told  that  life  can  have  as  its  object  its  own  de- 
struction, or  in  other  words  that  non-being  is  the 
condition  of  being.  This  is  the  reductio  ad  ahsur- 
dum  to  which  the  supposed  opposition  between 
morality  and  the  highest  interest  of  the  individual 
logically  leads. 

It  is  only  because  of  the  widespread  ignorance  of 
the  true  nature  and  advantages  of  association  that 
this  disastrous  belief  in  the  opposition  between 
morality  and  the  interests  of  the  individual  has 
become  established.  Many  persons  are  able  to 
see  so  far  as  to  understand  that  morality  is  identical 
with  the  highest  welfare  of  society,  but  few  persons 
are  able  to  see  the  final  link  in  the  chain  of  cause 
and  effect  whereby  the  welfare  of  society  is  identi- 
cal with  the  highest  self-interest  of  the  individual. 
This  is  because  of  the  failure  to  understand  the 
true  object  of  association  and  mutual  aid,  namely, 
to  increase  the  vital  intensity  of  the  units  which 
compose  the  association. 


352        Morality  and  Self-interest 

As  soon  as  the  true  nature  and  object  of  asso- 
ciation is  understood,  the  supposed  opposition 
between  morahty  and  self-interest  will  disappear. 
It  will  then  be  understood  that  every  action  is 
moral  which  increases  the  sum  of  enjoyment  of 
those  who  commit  this  action.  But  sum  of  enjoy- 
ment and  self-interest  are  equivalent  terms,  and 
this  amounts  to  saying  that  all  action  is  moral 
which  is  in  accord  with  self-interest  and  all  action 
is  immoral  which  is  contrary  to  self-interest. 
From  a  negative  point  of  view  the  proposition 
may  be  stated  thus:  All  action  is  immoral  which 
does  not  have  as  a  consequence  an  increase  of 
enjoyment  for  those  who  commit  this  action,  or 
in  other  words,  those  acts  alone  are  immoral  which 
are  contrary  to  self-interest  and  because  they  are 
contrary  to  self-interest.  If  after  the  most  pene- 
trating analysis  it  is  found  that  an  action  is  in- 
jurious to  the  one  who  commits  it,  this  action  is 
immoral.  If,  after  no  matter  how  long  a  circuit, 
an  action  causes  harm  to  its  author,  this  action  is 
immoral,  but  solely  on  accoimt  of  the  fact  that 
it  causes  harm  to  its  author.  This  reasoning  can 
be  made  clear  by  applying  it  to  the  rules  of  moral 
conduct  in  the  light  of  the  current  facts  of  exist- 
ence in  society. 

If  we  analyse  the  mechanism  of  association,  we 
find  that  if  one  man  kills  another,  he  kills  himself 
in  a  certain  measure.  It  is  because  the  murderer 
harms  himself  that  murder  is  a  crime  and  therefore 
a  supremely  immoral  action.   Suppose  that  murder 


The  Principle  of  Universality     353 

were  truly  in  accord  with  the  interests  of  the  in- 
dividual, murder  would  tend  to  become  a  moral 
act.  It  would  be  practised  universally  in  society. 
The  life  of  each  individual  would  become  less 
secure  and  finally  society,  including  the  individual 
murderer,  would  disappear.  The  commandment, 
"Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  is  a  law  of  morality  solely 
because  it  is  in  accord  with  the  self-interest  of  the 
individual. 

Not  only  is  it  immoral  to  destroy  the  lives  of 
one's  fellow-men,  but  there  are  cases  in  which  it  is 
immoral  to  destroy  an  animal.  A  man  who  kills 
an  ox  without  any  purpose,  even  if  the  ox  belongs 
to  him,  acts  in  an  immoral  manner,  but  if  the  same 
man  sends  a  certain  number  of  oxen  to  be  killed 
at  the  public  slaughter-house  every  day,  he  does 
not  commit  an  immoral  action.  Why?  Because 
the  killing  of  the  first  ox  does  not  have  as  a  result 
the  increase  of  his  own  well-being  in  any  perma- 
nent fashion,  while  the  regular  sending  of  the  other 
oxen  to  death  at  the  slaughter-house  has  these 
advantageous  results. 

The  same  reasoning  holds  in  the  economic  field. 
A  workman  who  produces  a  piece  of  bad  workman- 
ship acts  in  an  immoral  fashion.  Why?  Simply 
because  in  reality  he  injures  himself  by  this  act. 
If  it  were  possible  to  increase  wealth  indefinitely 
by  bad  workmanship,  this  would  be  moral.  The 
same  exact  analysis  of  the  facts  of  the  social 
mechanism  shows  that  it  is  impossible  to  exploit 
one's  neighbour  without  exploiting  one's  self.     It 


354        Morality  and  Self-interest 

is  for  this  reason  alone  that  the  act  of  exploitation 
is  a  reprehensible  act.  If  exploitation  could  be 
incontestably  advantageous  for  those  who  prac- 
tise it,  it  would  be  moral.  A  man  may  produce 
fabulous  wealth  and  still  remain  moral.  He  ceases 
to  be  moral,  however,  from  the  moment  when  he 
destroys  wealth  or  when  he  prevents  its  most 
rapid  increase  by  resorting  to  exploitation,  to 
privileges,  or  monopoly.  But  he  is  immoral  solely 
because  the  man  who  retards  production  dimin- 
ishes in  reality  the  sum  of  his  own  wealth.  If 
stealing,  fraud,  exploitation,  and  banditism,  prac- 
tised universally,  could  really  increase  the  wealth 
of  those  who  commit  these  actions,  they  would  be 
perfectly  moral  and  legitimate. 

Slavery  and  conquest  are  immoral  actions  in 
the  same  way,  because  slavery  is  injurious  to  the 
masters  and  conquest  to  the  conquerors.  If  the 
violent  conquest  of  Alsace-Lorraine  was  immoral, 
it  was  because  this  conquest  was  contrary  to  the 
true  interests  of  Germany.  The  political  meas- 
ures of  repression  applied  by  Germany  and  Russia 
in  Poland  are  immoral  because  they  are  injurious 
to  the  whole  of  the  German  and  Russian  nations. 

If  we  examine  each  moral  quality  in  detail  we 
see  that  each  reduces  itself  to  interest,  or  in  other 
terms,  to  the  maximum  of  enjoyment. 

Chastity  and  temperance  are  moral  because 
they  render  possible  a  more  intense  and  prolonged 
happiness.  Intemperance  is  immoral  because  it 
leads  to  satiety,  to  disgust,  to  disease,  and  to  short- 


Happiness  and  the  Social  Instincts   355 

ness  of  life,  and,  therefore,  in  all  these  cases  pro- 
duces a  diminution  of  happiness. 

Envy  is  immoral  because  it  causes  those  who 
experience  it  to  siiifer.  Emulation,  however,  is  not 
immoral  even  though  it  proceeds  from  an  impulse 
related  to  envy,  because  it  is  different  in  its  nature. 
The  person  who  is  envious  suffers  from  seeing  in 
the  possession  of  another  an  advantage  which  he 
himself  does  not  possess.  The  person  animated 
by  emulation  does  not  experience  the  evil  feeling 
in  regard  to  the  individual  who  possesses  a  good 
which  he  does  not  possess,  but  on  the  contrary 
he  attempts  to  procure  this  same  good  or  a  still 
greater  good  if  it  is  possible.  In  the  desire  to  sur- 
pass his  neighbour  he  does  not  experience  any 
suffering,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  greater  intensifica- 
tion of  mental  activity,  and  therefore  enjoyment. 
This  is  why  envy  is  immoral  and  emulation  is  not. 

Among  the  moral  qualities  which  are  most 
precious  are  always  arrayed  the  following:  gentle- 
ness, benevolence,  kindness.  However,  it  is  easy 
to  demonstrate  that  if  these  qualities  are  so  prized 
it  is  because  they  bring  with  them  the  greatest 
happiness.  The  gift  of  inspiring  sympathy  is  the 
greatest  which  exists  in  human  personality.  He 
who  knows  how  to  make  himself  loved  is  a  king 
upon  earth,  he  obtains  all  that  he  desires,  he  brings 
all  under  his  rule.  And  this  is  true  not  only  of 
individuals,  but  still  more  of  collectivities. 

What  greater  happiness  can  be  found  upon  earth 
than  to  be  loved?     However,  that  which  procures 


356        Morality  and  Self-interest 

us  this  immense  advantage  is  exactly  the  posses- 
sion of  those  moral  qualities,  affability,  righteous- 
ness, and  kindness,  which  men  estimate  so  highly 
and  with  so  great  reason. 

The  satisfaction  of  the  social  instincts  is  of 
course  one  of  the  most  important  elements  of 
happiness,  and  no  conception  of  enlightened  self- 
interest  would  be  complete  which  did  not  recognize 
the  fundamental  importance  of  psychological 
factors.  Darwin  has  emphasized  the  importance  of 
the  psychological  element  of  self-interest  repeat- 
edly. The  following  quotation  will  illustrate  his 
view: 

.  .  .  Even  at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  man, 
the  expressed  wishes  of  the  community  will  have 
naturally  influenced  to  a  large  extent  the  conduct  of 
each  member;  and  as  all  wish  for  happiness,  the 
"Greatest  happiness  principle"  will  have  become  a 
most  important  secondary  guide  and  object ;  the  social 
instinct,  however,  together  with  sympathy  (which 
leads  to  our  regarding  the  approbation  and  disappro- 
bation of  others) ,  having  served  as  the  primary  impulse 
and  guide.  Thus  the  reproach  is  removed  of  laying 
the  foundation  of  the  noblest  part  of  our  nature  in 
the  base  principle  of  selfishness;  unless,  indeed,  the 
satisfaction  which  every  animal  feels,  when  it  follows 
its  proper  instincts,  and  the  dissatisfaction  felt  when 
prevented,  be  called  selfish.^ 

In  the  true  Darwinian  theory,  morality  is  deduced 
from  the  principle  of  association.     Mutual  aid  is 

»  The  Descent  of  Man,  p.  136. 


Morality  and  the  Expansion  of  Life  357 

the  biological  process  by  which  the  parts  compos- 
ing the  association  obtain  the  maximum  of  vital 
intensity.  Everything  which  contributes  towards 
the  re-inforcement  of  association  is  moral  because 
association  is  life.  Everything  which  makes  for 
dissociation  is  immoral  because  dissociation  is 
death.  In  consequence  of  this  the  breaking  of  the 
bonds  of  association  is  a  crime  solely  because  it  is 
disadvantageous  for  the  individual.  If  the  rup- 
ture of  association  could  be  useful  for  the  individual, 
this  rupture  would  cease  to  be  a  crime  immediately. 
The  triumph  of  right  and  the  maximum  of  vital 
intensity  are  synonymous  terms.  My  right  is  the 
totality  of  the  acts  which  my  fellows  ought  to 
perform  in  order  to  permit  me  to  attain  the  maxi- 
mum of  vital  intensity.  But,  from  another  point 
of  view,  my  right  is  also  the  totality  of  the  acts 
which  I  ought  to  perform  in  order  not  to  diminish 
the  vital  intensity  of  my  fellows,  because  this 
intensity  of  life  for  others  is  the  indispensable  con- 
dition of  vital  intensity  for  me.  To  respect  the 
rights  of  others  then  (that  is,  to  act  according  to 
morality)  is  my  fundamental  interest, — morality 
and  self-interest  are  identical. 

It  is  necessary  to  understand  this  clearly.  In 
many  cases  the  impulse  which  leads  a  man  to  act 
morally  cannot  be  self-interest.  This  is  not  in 
contradiction  to  the  statement  that  the  action  can 
only  be  beneficent  if  it  conforms  to  his  interest, 
because  if  the  impulse  to  do  good  results  in  evil 
for  the  individual  who  commits  an  action,  this 


358         Morality  and  Self-interest 

action  is  evil,  however  pure  the  intentions  of  its 
author  may  be.  A  public  official  might  be  honest 
on  account  of  simple  instinctive  horror  of  stealing, 
but  this  does  not  contradict  the  truth  that  to  steal 
from  a  state  is  an  evil  action  only  because  it  is 
contrary  to  the  interest  of  this  official.  If  his 
corruption  did  not  cause  him  any  evil,  direct 
or  indirect,  it  would  not  be  immoral. 

To  sum  up,  if  it  is  not  morality  which  produces 
the  happiness  of  the  individual,  can  it  be  immoral- 
ity which  produces  this  happiness?  It  is  im- 
possible to  sustain  such  a  paradox,  for  it  amounts 
to  saying  that  in  order  to  be  happy  one  must  be 
vicious.  To  affirm  that  an  action  is  moral  which 
results  in  evil  for  its  author  is  to  maintain  that 
living  beings  do  not  seek  pleasure  and  avoid  suffer- 
ing. This  is  to  affirm  that  death  is  life.  These 
suppositions  are  so  contradictory  that  we  are 
compelled  to  adopt  the  conclusion  that  morality 
and  self-interest  are  identical. 

The  supposed  antagonism  between  morality  and 
interest  has  brought  morality  into  derision  and 
even  aroused  hatred  against  it  in  our  otherwise 
scientific  age.  A  greater  calamity  can  scarcely  be 
imagined,  for  it  leads  in  the  last  analysis  to  com- 
plete confusion  in  making  nations  and  individuals 
accept  evil  for  good.  It  results  in  plunging  the 
human  mind  into  the  most  despairing  anarchy. 
With  the  disintegration  of  the  old  basis  of  author- 
ity as  the  sanction  for  morality,  which  resulted 
from  the  rise  of  the  modern  scientific  spirit,  and 


Social  and  Individual  Interests    359 

with  no  rational  or  scientific  substitute  adopted 
in  place  of  authority,  the  human  race  has  become 
like  a  ship  without  compass  or  rudder,  tossed  about 
at  the  mercy  of  every  shifting  wind  and  wave. 

In  the  book  in  which  Benjamin  Kidd  has  tried 
to  prove  by  means  of  reason  that  reason  is  a  dan- 
gerous guide  in  human  relations,  he  has  included 
the  following  definition  of  religion : 

A  religion  is  a  form  of  belief,  providing  an  ultra- 
rational  sanction  for  that  lar^e  class  of  conduct  in 
the  individual  where  his  interests  and  the  interests  of 
the  social  organism  are  antagonistic,  and  by  which  the 
former  are  rendered  subordinate  to  the  latter  in  the 
general  interests  of  the  evolution  which  the  race  is 
undergoing.^ 

Mr.  Kidd  is  wrong  in  two  respects.  There  is  no 
conflict  between  the  interests  of  the  individual  and 
the  interests  of  the  social  organism  of  which  he  is  a 
part  any  more  than  there  is  a  conflict  between  the 
interests  of  the  human  brain  and  the  human  body, 
of  which  it  is  a  part.  The  antagonism  appears  to 
exist  because  of  the  elementary  state  of  our  social 
thinking.  Nor  is  religion  an  ultra-rational  sanc- 
tion for  social  conduct,  for  Mr.  Kidd  uses  rational 
processes  in  the  attempt  to  convince  us  that  social 
conduct  is  desirable  and  has  apparently  reached 
this  conclusion  for  himself  by  a  rational  process. 

'  Benjamin  Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  1895, 
chapter  v. 


36o        Morality  and  Self-interest 

Morever,  the  theory  of  association  shows  us  that 
social  evolution  is  the  process  of  the  expansion  of 
life  for  the  individual,  and  expansion  of  life  means, 
not  the  subordination,  but  the  realization  of  the 
interests  of  the  individual.  The  true  statement 
should  be :  religion  provided  a  ^re-rational  sanction 
for  the  conduct  of  the  individual  where  his  inter- 
ests and  the  interests  of  the  social  organism  seemed 
to  be  antagonistic.  The  real  opposition  is  not  be- 
tween morality  and  interest,  nor  even  between  the 
interests  of  the  individual  and  the  interests  of  the 
society.  These  are  always  identical.  The  opposi- 
tion, as  in  all  problems  of  human  misery,  is  that 
between  error  and  truth. 

The  establishment  of  the  true  Darwinian  theory 
of  social  progress  opens  the  way  for  the  reconcilia- 
tion not  only  of  morality  and  self-interest  but  of 
science  and  religion.  With  the  overthrow  of  the 
philosophy  of  force  will  disappear  the  apparent 
conflict  between  reason,  groping  in  the  darkness 
of  a  pseudo-science,  and  intuition,  made  up  of 
primordial  inferences  based  on  the  social  instincts 
of  human  nature. 
/  The  triumph  of  the  Darwinian  theory  will  mark 
/  the  conquest  of  reason  over  the  only  remaining 
area  of  irrationality — the  realm  of  human  relations 
and  morality.  Religion  gives  us  eternal  truths, 
but,  in  order  that  they  may  be  effective,  these 
eternal  truths  must  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the 
thought  of  each  generation,  and  the  spirit  of  our 
age  is  essentially  rational  and  scientific.     When 


Unity  of  Science  and  Religion     361 

the  great  truths  of  rehgion  shall  receive  their  new 
expression  in  terms  of  modern  scientific  thought, 
when  morality  is  given  its  scientific  foundation  in 
the  highest  self-interest  of  the  individual  and  the 
nation,  when  it  is  realized  that  the  central  principle 
of  religion  is  the  same  as  that  of  biological  and 
social  evolution — the  principle  of  the  "life  more 
abundant"  for  the  individual — then  the  blight  of 
materialism  which  has  darkened  the  past  half- 
century  of  human  history  will  disappear.  Religion 
will  become  again  a  vitalizing  power  in  human  life. 
Idealism  and  creative  art  will  reappear  with  a  new 
confidence,  and  the  way  will  be  open  for  the  re- 
demption and  reconstruction  of  human  society 
upon  the  great  principles  of  humanity  and  justice. 


CHAPTER  XII 

JUSTICE  AND   THE   EXPANSION   OF  LIFE' 

MORALITY  and  justice  are  identical  in  their 
essential  nature,  but  they  employ  different 
processes.  To  be  moral  is  to  practise  justice  with- 
out constraint,  solely  under  the  influence  of  internal 
impulse.  Since  the  internal  process  is  more  rapid 
than  external  pressure,  morality  is  superior  to 
justice,  but  if  on  account  of  wrong  social  thinking 
and  failure  to  realize  the  identity  of  morality  and 
self-interest,  the  internal  processes  are  not  suffi- 
cient, the  less  effective  external  processes  must  be 
employed.  If  the  moral  man  is  he  who  practises 
justice  of  his  own  free  will,  justice  in  its  turn  is  a 
means  which  has  for  its  object  the  morality  of 
society.  Since  morality  in  the  Darwinian  theory 
is  synonymous  with  the  life  more  abundant  for  the 
individual,  the  passion  for  justice,  which  is  in- 
herent in  every  human  heart,  is  essentially  a  pas- 
sion for  the  expansion  of  life. 

The  failure  to  understand  the  real  meaning  of 
justice  and  injustice,  like  the  failure  to  understand 

'  For  a  more  complete  treatment  of  this  subject,  see  Novikov, 
La  justice  et  I'expansion  de  la  vie. 

362 


Injustice  a  Limitation  of  Life      363 

the  advantages  of  association  and  the  relation  of 
morality  and  self-interest,  has  been  the  cause  of 
an  incalculable  amount  of  evil  and  suffering  for  the 
human  race.  In  its  essence,  justice  is  synonymous 
with  expansion  of  life;  injustice  with  its  limitation, 
or  in  other  words,  with  partial  death. 

Suppose  a  skilled  workman  can  make  seventy- 
two  pieces  of  pottery  a  week,  for  which  he  receives 
twenty-five  cents  each.  Then  suppose  a  new 
tariff  limits  his  market  so  that  he  can  sell  only 
forty-eight  pieces  of  pottery  a  week.  The  result 
to  him  is  the  same  as  if  two  of  his  fingers  had  been 
cut  off  so  that  he  could  make  only  forty-eight 
instead  of  seventy-two  pieces  a  week.  In  other 
words,  injustice  is  equivalent  to  a  mutilation. 

Suppose  a  lecturer  delivers  ten  addresses  a 
month  and  receives  fifty  dollars  a  lecture.  Sup- 
pose the  government  refuses  to  allow  him  to  speak 
in  certain  public  buildings,  or  otherwise  restricts 
freedom  of  speech,  so  that  he  is  able  to  lecture 
only  five  times  a  month.  His  annual  income  is 
reduced  one-half.  The  result  to  him  is  the  same 
as  if  a  nervous  breakdown  had  limited  his  ac- 
tivity.    It  is,  figuratively,  a  mutilation. 

This  illustrates  what  has  been  called  passive 
injustice.  But  active  injustice  is  an  equally 
injurious  mutilation  of  the  one  who  inflicts  it. 

Suppose  Paul  is  a  weaver  and  earns  two  dollars 
a  day.  With  it  he  can  buy  each  day,  let  us  say, 
ten  commodities.  But  one  day  all  the  other 
members  of  Paul's  group  are  accidentally  stricken 


364  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

by  paralysis.  Paul  works  as  before  and  produces 
as  much,  but  he  cannot  exchange  it.  He  can  buy 
no  commodities,  no  bread,  no  butter,  no  shoes. 
They  have  not  been  made.  If  the  paralysis  is 
partial,  so  that  only  half  as  many  commodities 
are  produced  as  before,  then  Paul  can  get  only 
approximately  half  as  much  bread,  butter,  shoes, 
etc.,  in  exchange  for  the  cloth  which  he  weaves  in 
a  day.  And  if  the  paralysis  were  not  accidental 
but  due  to  wounds  inflicted  by  Paul,  he  would  be 
just  as  ill  situated.  O71  account  of  the  interde- 
pendence of  human  society  every  mutilation  is 
in  the  last  analysis  an  auto-mutilation.  From 
whatever  aspect  it  is  viewed,  injustice  is  a  limita- 
tion of  life. 

We  can  now  better  understand  altruism.  In  so 
far  as  altruism  serves  to  increase  the  welfare  of  the 
society  of  which  I  am  a  part,  it  is  simply  enlightened 
self-interest.  It  is  to  my  interest  to  love  my 
neighbours  as  myself — and  myself  as  my  neigh- 
bours; in  other  words,  to  be  just.  If  I  go  further, 
and  sacrifice  my  real  interests  as  a  member  of 
society,  I  lose  and  society  loses.  Not  altruism, 
but  justice  is  the  solution  of  the  social  problem. 

This  is  equally  true  of  political  relations.  A 
State  is  just  when  it  assures  its  citizens  full  liberty. 
Then  each  individual  can  attain  his  or  her  fullest 
physical  and  intellectual  development.  To  be 
imjust  is  to  inflict  on  them  a  series  of  mutilations. 
To  censor  a  writer's  book  is  equivalent  to  render- 
ing him  physically  incapable  of  writing  it.     In 


The  Mechanism  of  Retribution    365 

individual  relations  this  is  called  a  crime.  When 
a  government  limits  the  activity  of  a  mimber  of 
people,  it  is  a  case  of  social  pathology.  When  the 
biological  units  of  which  society  is  composed  are 
mutilated  or  diseased,  society  itself  is  diseased. 

Despotism  is  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the 
governed  by  the  governing.  In  a  despotism  citi- 
zens who  seek  the  best  interests  of  the  State  are 
considered  criminal  and  are  punished  for  it.  Hence 
they  lose  interest  in  the  State;  and  patriotism 
disappears.  A  large  part  of  the  world  has  already 
learned  that  despotism  is  unprofitable.  The  cases 
of  despotism  which  still  remain  are  striking  illus- 
trations of  its  failure.  Although  the  Sultan  of 
Turkey  levied  taxes  of  thirty  per  cent,  on  his 
twenty-four  million  subjects,  he  received  less 
revenue  than  the  Queen  of  Holland  with  only  six 
million  subjects  and  a  lower  tax  rate.  Every 
diminution  of  the  vital  intensity  of  the  governed 
is  a  diminution  of  the  vital  intensity  of  the  govern- 
ing. Turkey  is  reactionary  and  hence  unproduc- 
tive. Despotism  mutilates  not  only  the  governed, 
but  the  governing  as  well. 

Despotism  is  the  use  of  brute  force  to  compel 
citizens  to  do  that  which  is  contrary  to  their  own 
interests,  for  the  supposed  profit  of  their  masters. 
War  is  the  process  by  which  international  despot- 
ism is  established;  and  internal  despotism  is  es- 
sentially a  latent  and  perpetual  war  between  the 
governed  and  the  governing.  War  like  despotism 
is  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  others,  a  mutilation. 


366  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

When  a  government,  in  order  to  impose  its  will  on 
others,  sends  forth  its  citizens  to  kill  them,  it  is 
obvious  that  it  is  violating  justice  most  flagrantly. 
Defence  obviously  presupposes  such  aggression, 
and  it  is  absurd  to  discuss  war  solely  in  terms  of 
defence.     Aggression  is  always  precedent. 

The  reaction  of  injustice  is  a  universal  phe- 
nomenon. A  conquering  government  may  wish 
to  censor  all  separatist  discussion.  It  cannot  tell 
by  their  bindings  what  books  contain  separatist 
ideas.  It  must  appoint  censors  to  read  all  books 
published,  even  those  by  its  own  citizens.  That 
is,  it  must  limit  the  rights  of  its  own  citizens.  The 
injury  cannot  be  confined  to  the  conquered  people. 
Who  knows  what  the  Balkans  might  have  pro- 
duced but  for  Turkish  misrule?  Had  Russia 
allowed  Polish  education,  who  knows  but  a  Polish 
doctor  might  have  discovered  a  cure  for  cancer 
that  would  have  saved  millions  of  Russians? 

The  prosperity  of  our  neighbours  is  essential  to 
our  own.  The  widespread  delusion  to  the  con- 
trary has  caused  centuries  of  bloodshed.  Only 
the  persistence  of  the  old  mercantilist  illusion, 
which  ignored  the  advantages  of  association  and 
the  division  of  labour,  can  account  for  the  belief 
that  the  prosperity  of  one  country  can  be  promoted 
by  injury  to  its  neighbours.  What  is  true  econom- 
ically is  true  intellectually.  Intellectual  develop- 
ment in  Germany  never  hampered  intellectual 
life  in  France ;  there  was  rather  a  reciprocal  stimu- 
lation.    The  thought  and  energy  given  to  military 


The  Principle  of  Nationality      367 

defence  and  preparation,  whether  in  time  of  peace 
or  in  war,  is  a  loss,  a  mutilation,  of  the  construc- 
tive and  productive  thought  not  only  of  that 
country,  but  also  of  the  neighbouring  countries, 
which,  imder  the  system  of  international  anarchy, 
make  this  preparation  necessary.  As  soon  as  it  is 
realized  that  each  nation  has  an  interest  in  the 
intellectual  and  economic  health  of  its  neighbours, 
the  pathological  condition  of  international  anarchy 
will  disappear. 

It  is  of  little  importance  to  the  happiness  of  one 
individual  whether  there  are  fifty-two  or  520 
countries  in  the  world.  It  is  important  that  the 
number  correspond  to  the  needs  and  wishes  of  the 
peoples,  that  is,  to  justice;  for  only  then  will  each 
enjoy  all  the  possible  advantages  of  political  asso- 
ciation, of  division  of  labour  and  exchange.  The 
principle  of  national  autonomy  is  an  essential  con- 
dition for  the  highest  development  of  life,  not  only 
for  the  people  of  the  nation  directly  concerned, 
but  for  all  the  members  of  the  human  race. 

Every  injustice  is  then  a  limitation  of  the  full 
exercise  of  his  faculties  on  the  part  of  both  victim 
and  victimizer.  It  is  really  a  diminution  of  life. 
The  converse  is  obvious.  Justice  is  synonymous 
with  the  greatest  possible  expansion  and  expres- 
sion of  life. 

Most  modern  nations  are  composed  of  provinces 
which  were  once  independent  states.  Germany, 
Italy,  France,  England,  and  the  United  States  are 
all  products  of  such  unions  of  states  which  formerly 


368  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

held  their  interests  to  be  opposed.  The  establish- 
ment of  justice  has  made  it  possible  for  them  to 
live  together,  just  as  the  establishment  of  universal 
justice,  i.  e.,  the  juridical  association  of  all  man- 
kind, will  make  it  obvious  that  the  interests  of 
present-day  nations  are  in  reality  one,  and  war 
will  become  a  thing  of  the  past.  Then  human 
life  will  be  able  to  expand  as  far  as  the  natural 
limitations  of  our  planet  will  permit. 

Expansion  of  life  depends  not  only  on  the  num- 
ber of  men  associated  together,  but  on  the  intensity 
of  their  activity,  and  this  too  is  a  function  of  justice. 
When  every  citizen's  rights  are  respected  and  each 
enjoys  the  fiill  fruits  of  his  labour,  activity  is  most 
intense.  In  Turkey  the  poor  peasant  does  not 
dare  increase  the  yield  of  his  garden  for  fear  of 
tempting  the  cupidity  of  brigands  and  tax  col- 
lectors, and  in  America  and  England  the  factory 
worker  who  feels  that  he  is  being  exploited  and 
believes  he  has  no  interest  in  increased  activity, 
often  deliberately  limits  his  output.  The  fact  of 
injustice  leads  to  conscious  limitation  of  the 
fulness  of  life. 

We  cannot  abolish  earthquakes  or  cyclones, 
and  the  injury  caused  by  them  is  beyond  our  power 
to  prevent.  We  cannot  give  men  more  inherited 
intelligence.  But  we  can  cease  massacring  and 
despoiling  one  another.  The  forms  of  suffering 
and  unhappiness  due  to  injustice  we  can  prevent. 

If  every  injustice  is  a  mutilation,  obviously 
injustice  and  unhappiness  are  synonymous.     No 


Happiness  and  Justice  Synonymous  369 

one  will  deny  this  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
victim  of  injustice.  Everyone  realizes  that  sub- 
ject peoples,  such  as  Filipinos,  Armenians,  Finns, 
and  Poles,  in  asking  for  their  rights,  are  impelled 
by  the  desire  to  escape  from  unhappiness.  But 
the  tableau  changes  when  we  pass  from  injustice 
suffered  to  injustice  inflicted.  If  all  men  under- 
stand that  it  is  disastrous  to  be  victims,  most  men 
still  think  that  it  is  advantageous  to  be  victimizers; 
they  think  it  is  unfortunate  to  have  one's  watch 
stolen  but  fortunate  to  be  the  thief.  The  thief 
is  of  course  the  better  off  of  the  two — but  that  is 
not  the  question.  It  is  no  real  gain  for  either  an 
individual  or  a  nation  to  become  relatively  three 
feet  higher  than  another,  if  in  the  process  both 
sink  six  feet  below  the  ground. 

It  was  long  ago  observed  that  slavery  often 
demoralized  the  masters  even  more  than  the  slaves. 
Now  slavery  is  simply  a  series  of  spoliations;  it  is 
continuous  theft.  And  the  result  was  what  we 
should  expect.  The  old  slave  states  of  America 
are  still  industrially  far  behind  those  that  were 
free.  The  South  does  not  yet  fully  realize  that 
"if  you  want  to  keep  the  negro  in  the  ditch,  you 
must  stay  in  the  ditch  with  him."  But  it  is  a 
necessary  consequence  from  the  nature  of  injustice 
as  an  act  of  auto-mutilation. 

The  existence  of  conscience  is  an  evidence  of  the 
identity  of  justice  and  the  expansion  of  life. 
Conscience  is  really  a  lightning  calculator  of  en- 
lightened self-interest.     Just  as  the  human  spirit 

a4 


370  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

has  replaced  the  image  with  the  word,  it  has  re- 
placed calculation  of  interest  by  the  love  of  good 
and  hatred  of  evil.  Self-interest  is  no  longer 
consciously  present,  but  the  good  is  synonymous 
with  enlightened  self-interest,  as  we  have  seen  in 
Chapter  XL  Now  conscience  has  become  one  of 
the  great  factors  in  human  happiness.  When  a 
man  commits  an  act  which  he  knows  is  evil,  he 
feels  himself  degraded  and  disgraced:  he  is  un- 
happy. So  too  with  nations.  The  oppression  of 
subject  peoples  causes  something  like  a  series  of 
permanent  cerebral  lesions  in  the  oppressors.  The 
Russians  oppressing  Poles  and  Finns ;  the  Germans 
oppressing  Poles,  Danes,  and  Alsatians;  the  Mag- 
yars, Serbians  and  Roumanians;  the  EngHsh,  the 
East  Indians;  and  the  Americans,  the  FiHpinos, 
ought  to  feel  themselves  disgraced  and  degraded. 
Unfortunately  the  masses  do  not  feel  so;  that  is 
because  the  general  public  has  not  yet  a  sufficiently 
keen  insight  into  far-reaching  social  phenomena. 
But  in  every  civilized  country  there  is  a  growing 
group  who  feel  such  shame.  The  day  will  come 
when  collective  crimes  will  appear  to  the  masses  as 
odious  as  individual  crimes  do  today.  It  will  then 
be  realized  that  happiness  without  justice  is  for 
nations  as  for  men  the  most  chimerical  of  dreams. 
Happiness  and  justice  are  then  synonymous. 
All  the  goods  of  the  world  without  sympathy  profit 
a  man  nothing.  Hatred  contracts  the  soul  as  cold 
contracts  a  metal.  Could  the  nations  of  the  world 
but  realize  this!     It  is  only  injustice  that  keeps 


Justice  the  Condition  of  Association  371 

them  apart.  For  centuries  statesmen  have  believed 
the  violation  of  their  neighbours'  rights  to  be  sage 
wisdom  and  good  politics,  and  the  memory,  con- 
scious or  unconscious,  of  these  accumulated  injus- 
tices, has  given  rise  to  national  hatreds  that  seem 
ineradicable.  But  as  surely  as  injustice  has  pro- 
duced hate,  just  action  would  provoke  respect  and 
sympathy. 

Association  is  another  synonym  of  justice. 
Universal  justice  and  universal  association  are  one 
and  the  same.  My  happiness  is  in  direct  propor- 
tion to  the  number  and  power  of  my  associates. 
It  is  to  my  interest  that  they  attain  their  maximum 
vital  intensity.  I  do  not  attain  my  maximum 
development  by  violating  their  rights.  I  attain 
it  by  co-operation.  Imagine  a  world  in  which 
every  man  was  hostile  to  every  other:  hella  om- 
nium contra  omnes.  Each  individual  would  have 
to  devote  a  large  share  of  his  time  to  fighting  the 
others ;  the  total  production  and  the  individual  pro- 
duction would  be  correspondingly  lessened.  His- 
tory is  a  record  of  increasing  solidarity.  Man  has 
felt  himself  a  part  of  ever  larger  groups — of  the 
horde,  the  clan,  the  tribe,  the  city,  the  state,  and 
nation.  And  always  his  interests  have  in  reality 
been  identical  with  a  larger  group  than  that  of 
which  he  was  consciously  a  member.  The  people 
of  New  York  and  Virginia,  of  Breton  and  Proven  gal 
know  it  is  not  to  their  interests  to  violate  each 
other's  rights.  Some  day  the  people  of  Germany 
and  England  will  know  it  too.     Universal  happi- 


372  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

ness  is  impossible  without  universal  justice  and 
universal  association. 

The  biological  analogue  of  justice  is  organiza- 
tion. Organization  begins  in  multi-cellular  bodies 
by  differentiation  of  function  and  division  of 
labour.  Obviously  division  of  labour  involves 
exchange.  But  equity  is  an  essential  condition  of 
exchange.  If  the  service  rendered  and  the  service 
received  are  not  equivalent,  one  part  is  hyper- 
trophied  and  the  other  atrophied;  association 
ceases.  In  sociological  terms  exchange  without 
justice  is  exploitation.  And  just  as  equity  of  ex- 
change is  one  of  the  first  conditions  of  life,  so 
justice  is  the  necessary  condition  for  society. 

Similarly  we  may  compare  justice  with  health. 
A  person  or  a  state  is  healthy  when  vital  intensity 
is  at  its  maximum.  Justice  produces  that  con- 
dition. If  we  compare  Russia  with  Switzerland, 
we  note  that  political  assassinations  are  every-day 
occurrences  in  Russia;  the  most  extreme  precau- 
tions must  be  taken  to  preserve  the  life  of  the 
Czar.  In  Switzerland  peace  reigns  and  disorder 
is  unknown,  which  amounts  to  saying  that  Switz- 
erland is  socially  healthy  while  Russian  injustice 
has  led  to  social  disease. 

Unemployment  is  another  form  of  social  disease, 
due  to  injustice.  There  is  work  enough  to  be  done. 
The  Russian  soil  is  perhaps  the  richest  in  the  world, 
but  is  unexploited  because  foreign  citizens  and 
foreign  capital  do  not  feel  sufficiently  secure 
there.     Australia   makes   slow    progress    because 


Justice  and  Social  Health         373 

labour,  as  the  party  in  power,  has  made  laws  unjust 
to  capital.  In  many  countries  lack  of  access  to 
the  land  results  in  widespread  unemployment  and 
suffering.  All  over  the  world  the  barriers  to 
commerce  prevent  a  rational  development  of 
resources  and  the  employment  of  labour  in  those 
activities  in  which  it  would  be  most  productive. 
Rapid  increase  of  population  should  increase  the 
demand  for  commodities,  and  labour-saving  in- 
ventions go  hand  in  hand  with  new  needs.  The 
pathological  situation  of  inadequate  demand  for 
labour  is  always  a  direct  product  of  injustice. 

Since,  then,  happiness  can  only  be  attained  by 
universal  justice,  and  universal  justice  means  the 
organization  of  all  mankind,  such  organization 
must  be  the  most  immediate  and  most  imperative 
need  of  our  age.  But  most  men  act  on  precisely 
the  contrary  principle.  Even  politicians  and 
statesmen  consider  perpetual  anarchy  the  supreme 
good  and  cry,  "My  country  right  or  wrong." 
Is  it  not  true  that  the  highest  patriotism  demands 
justice?  That  the  interest  of  vStates  is  not  to 
preserve  their  "sovereignty,"  nor  to  prolong  the 
reign  of  anarchy,  but  to  advance  the  federation  of 
the  world?  It  is  not  an  impracticable  vision. 
All  that  is  needed  for  its  realization  is  an  apprecia- 
tion of  its  actual  advantages.  The  eight  great 
Powers  dominate  the  world.  If  they  once  lead  the 
way,  the  others  will  follow.  If  they  once  resolve 
no  longer  to  tolerate  military  aggression  as  they 
no  longer  tolerate  piracy,  the  rest  of  the  world 


374  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

must  follow.  All  that  is  needed  is  that  the  states- 
men and  the  governing  classes  realize  the  necessity 
of  international  justice,  and  mankind  will  be 
organized. 

When  will  organization  come?  No  one  can  tell. 
But  in  our  day  he  who  cannot  see  that  the  union 
of  civilized  peoples  is  the  most  urgent  of  all  neces- 
sities, is  truly  blind. 

Only  through  organization  can  the  nations  ob- 
tain absolute  security — only  by  the  establishment 
of  world-justice.  War  is  the  greatest  possible 
violation  of  right.  It  begins  with  homicide  (total 
suppression  of  life),  continues  with  a  series  of 
spoliations  (partial  suppression  of  life),  and  ends 
in  despotism  (diminution  of  the  intensity  of  life). 
Men  have  believed  brute  force  the  best  means  of 
avoiding  war,  and  they  have  piled  armament  on 
armament.  In  1868  France  could  mobilize  three 
hundred  thousand  men  in  three  months;  in  1914, 
three  million  in  fifteen  days.  Yet  she  was  no 
more  secure.  Germany  too  had  increased  her 
armament.  The  risks  of  war  were  not  decreased 
by  the  increase  in  military  defence.  Absolute 
security  can  be  obtained  only  by  being  stronger 
than  all  possible  rivals,  and  the  failure  of  Napo- 
leon's attempt  proved  that  to  be  an  impossibility. 
As  long  as  there  is  no  guarantee,  such  as  a  League 
of  Peace  alone  can  give,  that  armaments  created 
ostensibly  to  establish  security  will  not  be  used 
for  aggression,  coalitions  of  nations  will  always 
arise  against   any   one  nation   or  alliance,   that 


Security,  Liberty,  and  Equality    375 

assumes  so  dominant  and  threatening  a  position. 
Such  an  attempt  is  obviously  incapable  of  general 
realization:  a  very  one-sided  reasoning  is  behind 
it.  Every  nation  cannot  be  stronger  than  every 
other.  Brute  force  alone  cannot  give  security. 
Only  a  world  federation,  representing  a  world  pub- 
lic opinion,  can  be  stronger  than  any  possible 
enemy.  There  can  be  no  security  without  justice 
and  organization. 

Liberty,  too,  the  guarantee  against  violation  of 
rights  by  individual  or  by  government,  is  condi- 
tioned by  justice.  Individuals  as  well  as  social 
groups  can  be  free  only  if  they  respect  the  rights 
of  other  individuals  and  of  other  groups.  Peter 
is  not  completely  free  until  all  men  respect  his 
rights.  And  Paul,  Peter's  cousin,  can  be  free  only 
on  this  same  condition.  So  when  Peter  fails  to 
respect  the  rights  of  Paul,  Paul  is  no  longer  free, 
and  vice  versa.  When  Bodin  speaks  of  the  free- 
dom and  sovereignty  of  the  State,  he  usually  means 
not  the  right  to  determine  its  own  destiny,  but  the 
possibility  of  determining  that  of  others.  It  often 
means  an  assertion  of  the  right  to  steal.  It  is  the 
right  to  attack  a  neighbour  on  any  pretext  and  at 
any  moment,  that  is,  to  maintain  perpetual  an- 
archy, which  is  called  "sovereignty."  But  it  is 
truly  kindergarten  logic  to  see  the  palladium  of 
liberty  in  the  maintenance  of  anarchy.  Liberty 
means,  essentially,  security,  and  security  comes 
from  respect  for  law,  not  from  its  violation.  The 
masses  have  no  interest  in  the  maintenance  of 


376  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

anarchy,  and  the  great  democratic  forces  oppose 
it.  Only  an  infinitesimal  minority  can  gain  by 
anarchy,  but  in  the  absence  of  an  enlightened 
public  opinion,  this  infinitesimal  minority  controls 
the  destinies  of  nations. 

One  more  synonym  for  justice:  equality.  Poli- 
tical equality  requires  strict  respect  for  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  compatriots,  equal  justice  for  rich 
and  poor,  equal  security  for  all.  It  is  the  natural 
system,  for  the  history  of  dynasties  proves  that 
political  aptitudes  are  not  inherited.  If  inequal- 
ities were  inherited  and  permanent,  aristocracy 
might  be  justified.  If  it  could  be  proved  that 
mental  qualities  were  racial  and  not  individual, 
that,  for  instance,  all  negroes  were  stupid  and  all 
white  men  wise,  overlordship  might  be  justified. 
But  there  are  Booker  T.  Washingtons  and  there 
is  "white  trash."  An  inferiority  which  instead 
of  being  congenital  is  the  product  of  adverse  his- 
torical environment  cannot  justify  the  refusal  of 
the  right  to  liberty  and  independence.  If  the 
juridical  equality  of  the  races  of  man  is  not  made 
a  fundamental  principle  of  international  law, 
human  happiness  will  remain  a  dream,  for  with- 
out equality  there  will  be  no  justice,  and  without 
justice,  no  happiness. 

Security,  liberty,  equality — these  are  conditions 
of  the  greatest  expansion  of  life. 

Social  phenomena  are  inextricably  interwoven. 
The  marvellous  civilization  displayed  in  the  magni- 
ficent beauty  of  the  French  Riviera  is  a  product  of 


Justice  the  Goal  of  Human  Progress  377 

the  last  century.  Why?  Because  only  within  the 
last  century  has  there  been  security  from  Saracen 
pirates,  in  other  words,  justice.  Now  barbarism 
is  the  social  condition  which  allows  a  minimum  of 
pleasure;  civilization  that  which  permits  a  maxi- 
mum. And  since  every  individual  seeks  to  avoid 
suffering  and  tries  to  find  happiness,  the  impulse 
towards  a  higher  civilization  is  rooted  deep  in 
human  nature.  Barbarism  and  injustice  are 
synonyms  whether  used  internationally  or  within 
a  nation.  One  of  the  principal  factors  in  the  high 
Sicilian  criminality  is  the  absence  of  prompt 
expeditious  justice.  And,  similarly,  we  call  that 
State  civilized,  whose  citizens  enjoy  to  the  full 
civil  and  political  liberty;  that  is  to  say,  where 
justice  reigns. 

Democracy  and  conquest  are  at  opposite  poles. 
Conquest  is  a  form  of  exploitation  which  cannot 
coexist  with  true  democracy.  To  die  for  king  and 
country  has  meant  but  too  often  to  die  to  de- 
spoil a  neighbour,  in  other  words,  to  perpetuate 
international  anarchy. 

We  still  live  in  an  era  of  illusions.  We  condemn 
petty  brutalities,  but  when  they  exist  on  a  vast 
scale  we  call  them  inevitable  and  honoiu*  them. 
For  centtiries  men  have  dimly  guessed  what 
justice  meant,  they  have  had  vague  intuitions 
that  it  was  the  goal  of  himian  progress.  In  large 
measure  it  was  the  need  of  justice  that  inspired 
the  idea  of  God  and  gave  man  this  belief  in  a 
future  life.     As  Renan  says: 


2,7^  Justice  and  the  Expansion  of  Life 

A  single  thought  sums  up  the  history  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  during  a  thousand  years:  The  day  will  come 
when  justice  will  reign  upon  the  earth.' 

Every  social  reform  is  based  upon  the  demand  for 
justice.  Yet,  knowing  this,  men  act  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  way  to  avoid  submission  to  injustice 
is  to  practise  injustice  to  others.  Reprisal  fol- 
lows retaliation,  leading  to  a  cumulative  use  of 
force  in  ever-increasing  destruction. 

But  we  have  moved  forward.  Tacitus  tells  of 
a  slaughter  of  four  hundred  slaves.  In  390  a.d. 
Theodosius  had  seven  thousand  Thessalonians 
killed  in  the  public  theatre  because  they  had 
protested  against  one  of  his  decrees.  In  times  of 
peace  such  things  are  no  longer  possible.  With 
the  sole  exception  of  international  war  we  have 
advanced  far  beyond  our  position  of  even  a  century 
ago.  We  are  developing  a  new  type  of  social 
legislation  which  represents  a  new  social  conscience, 
awakening  to  the  need  for  a  larger  conception  of 
social  justice. 

History  is  a  lesson  in  the  evolution  of  law — first 
within  small  units,  then  within  larger  and  larger 
areas.  Despotism  served  its  term  in  extending 
the  sphere  of  law.  The  mediaeval  dream  of  a 
universal  monarchy  was  an  imperfect  image  of  a 
world  of  law.  The  whole  history  of  political 
evolution  is  a  record  of  the  extension  of  the  area  of 
justice.     Today  the  human  species  is  broken  up 

'  Renan,  Histoire  du  peuple  d' Israel,  Paris,  1893,  vol.  v.,  p.  132. 


Increasing  Area  of  Law  in  Evolution  379 

into  a  multitude  of  independent  states.  Federa- 
tion must  and  will  come.  It  is  for  the  good  of 
each  and  every  one  of  these  States.  Humanity 
still  has  far  to  travel,  but  the  road  lies  clear 
before  us. 

Biologists  speak  of  positive  and  of  negative 
selection.  The  one  strengthens  a  trait  and  a  race; 
the  other  weakens  it.  War,  as  Darwin  has  pointed 
out,  acts  as  a  negative  selection.  So  long  as 
international  anarchy  persists,  the  negative 
selection  of  war  will  continue. 

Justice  is  the  prime  condition  of  positive  selec- 
tion. It  alone  permits  the  highest  development 
of  human  life.  Life  and  justice — these  are  identi- 
cal terms.  Expansion  of  life,  happiness,  associa- 
tion, order,  organization,  health,  security,  liberty, 
equality,  material  well-being,  civilization,  justice 
— all  are  synonyms.  What  a  pity  that  the  world 
has  not  realized  it;  what  a  calamity  if  it  does  not 
soon  realize  it!  The  form  and  aspect  would  re- 
main the  same ;  but  a  world  animated  by  the  spirit 
of  justice  would,  in  its  life  more  abundant,  seem 
to  be  peopled  by  a  new  and  higher  species. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

WORLD  FEDERATION  AND   SOCIAL   PROGRESS 

THE  goal  of  social  evolution,  in  the  true  Dar- 
winian theory,  is  the  federation  of  the 
entire  human  race.  ^  This  is  an  essential  condition 
of  the  highest  development  of  man,  for  only  thus 
can  moral  progress,  the  highest  welfare,  and  the 
largest  life  for  the  individual,  the  nation,  and 
the  entire  race  be  attained.  The  federation  of  the 
world  is  the  unifying  thesis  of  all  social  progress. 
The  chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  world  federation 
is  the  philosophy  of  force.  As  long  as  nations 
believe  that  military  force  can  be  used  aggres- 
sively to  promote  national  welfare,  they  will  be 
unwilling  to  give  up  the  right  to  declare  war  when- 
ever they  wish  to  do  so.  But  the  Great  War 
itself  may  be  a  powerful  factor  in  bringing  about 
the  intellectual  revolution  which  is  the  necessary 
condition  for  the  abolition  of  our  present  system  of 
international  anarchy.  The  disappearance  of  the 
belief  in  the  advantages  of  aggression  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  common  need  of  all  nations  for 

» See  supra,  pp.  299-302, 

380 


From  Anarchy  to  a  League  of  Peace  381 

security  on  the  other,  is  bringing  the  project  for 
a  League  of  Peace  down  from  the  realm  of  aca- 
demic discussion  into  the  region  of  practical 
politics. 

Such  a  League  of  Peace,  even  though  it  be  lim- 
ited to  an  agreement  of  the  signatory  powers  not 
to  begin  hostilities  before  the  question  in  dispute 
has  been  referred  to  an  International  Court  of  Jus- 
tice or  an  International  Council  of  Investigation 
and  Conciliation,  will  lay  the  secure  foundations 
upon  which  the  structure  of  world  organization 
may  be  built.  The  creation  of  such  an  agree- 
ment inevitably  involves  the  establishment  of  a 
World  Court  of  Justice.  It  involves  creating  the 
international  law  which  this  court  shall  administer, 
and  some  method  for  enforcing  the  agreement  in 
case  it  is  violated  by  any  of  the  signatory  powers. 
In  other  words  the  establishment  of  a  League  of 
Peace  leads  inevitably  to  the  development  of  all 
three  elements  of  world  government,  the  judicial, 
the  legislative,  and  the  executive  functions. 

Such  a  League  of  Peace  would  not  abolish  force 
as  a  factor  in  human  relations,  but  it  would  pro- 
foundly modify  the  conditions  under  which  force  is 
used,  transforming  it  from  the  violent  part  it  plays 
under  the  present  conditions  of  international  an- 
archy into  a  true  police  force  used  under  the  direction 
of  law  and  in  behalf  of  a  universal  conception  of 
justice.  Even  though  the  force  employed  may 
be  composed  at  first  of  co-operating  national  armies 
and   navies,   its   essential   characteristics    would 


382  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

nevertheless  be  those  of  an  international  police 
force.  The  essential  function  of  a  police  force  is 
to  prevent  aggression  and  compel  the  parties  to  a 
dispute  to  bring  their  case  into  court.  It  does 
not  itself  commit  aggression  or  attempt  to  estab- 
lish justice.  The  disastrous  defect  of  rival  armies 
and  navies  under  the  present  system  of  interna- 
tional anarchy  is  that  each  nation,  disregarding 
the  universal  principle  that  it  should  not  be  a 
judge  in  its  own  case,  attempts  to  impose  a  one- 
sided conception  of  justice  by  physical  force,  and 
constitutes  itself,  not  only  judge,  but  also  advo- 
cate, sheriff,  and  executioner,  in  the  dispute  to 
which  it  is  a  party.  The  result  is  necessarily  to 
base  the  decision  on  Might  instead  of  Right,  and 
to  employ  a  maximum  of  force  where  a  minimum 
would  be  more  effective. 

Still  less  would  such  a  League  of  Peace  abolish 
struggle  from  human  relations.  This  is,  of  course, 
one  of  the  chief  militaristic  objections  to  world  fed- 
eration.   For  example,  General  von  Bernhardi  says : 

To  expand  the  idea  of  the  State  into  that  of  human- 
ity, and  thus  to  entrust  apparently  higher  duties  to  the 
individual,  leads  to  error,  since  in  a  human  race  con- 
ceived as  a  whole,  struggle,  and  by  implication  the 
most  essential  vital  principle,  would  be  ruled  out. 
Any  action  in  favour  of  collective  humanity  outside  the 
limits  of  the  State  and  nationality  is  impossible.  Such 
conceptions  belong  to  the  wide  domain  of  Utopias.  ^ 

'  Bernhardi,  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  p.  25. 


Struggle  Raised  to  Higher  Planes  383 

After  our  analysis  of  the  errors  of  the  philosophy 
of  force,  it  is  unnecessary  to  demonstrate  again 
that  even  after  the  federation  of  the  world  has  been 
created,  men  will  continue  to  compete  with  each 
other,  that  the  different  social  classes  will  desire 
to  secure  certain  privileges,  that  men  will  not  cease 
to  be  divided  into  political  parties,  that  the  lan- 
guage frontiers  will  continue  to  be  displaced,  that 
struggles  will  continue  between  the  various  philo- 
sophic and  scientific  systems,  and  between  the 
different  literary  and  artistic  schools,  and  that  the 
limits  of  the  different  groups  of  civilizations  will 
continually  undergo  change, — in  other  words  that 
struggle  under  its  most  diverse  aspects  will  not  be 
ruled  out.  The  only  difference  will  be  that  these 
struggles,  instead  of  resulting,  as  now,  in  collective 
homicide  on  the  battle-field,  will  take  place  by 
processes  which,  in  those  fields  of  human  life  where 
anarchy  has  been  abolished,  are  called  legal.  Only 
the  lowest  and  least  effective  form  of  struggle,  that 
which  proceeds  by  physiological  processes,  will  be 
minimized,  and  struggle  as  a  factor  in  human 
relations  will  rise  to  the  higher  and  more  fruit- 
ful stages  of  economic,  political,  and  intellectual 
struggle. 

Nor  is  it  necessary  to  change  human  nature  in 
order  to  establish  world  federation.  The  Amer- 
icans who  united  the  thirteen  original  colonies  and 
the  Swiss  who  united  their  cantons  into  a  federa- 
tion were  not  angels.  In  order  to  form  a  federa- 
tion of  the  world,  it  is  indispensable,  not  that  men 


384  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

should  become  more  moral,  but  that  they  should 
become  more  intelligent.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
men  or  nations  be  asked  to  sacrifice  their  interests, 
but  only  that  they  shall  recognize  what  are  their 
true  interests. 

The  obstacles  in  the  way  of  world  federation  are 
undoubtedly  formidable.  Among  the  most  im- 
portant obstacles,  besides  those  produced  by  the 
prominence  in  the  minds  of  men  of  the  philosophy 
of  force,  are :  land  hunger  and  desire  for  territorial 
conquest;  the  spirit  of  jingoism  and  the  desire  for 
national  expansion;  the  enormous  financial  inter- 
ests involved  in  the  private  manufacture  of  arma- 
ments ;  the  special  interests  created  by  militarism ; 
a  distrust  and  even  defiance  of  the  principles 
of  international  justice;  race  prejudice  and  race 
hatred,  egotism  and  social  myopia  of  the  nations; 
national  illusions;  the  powerful  effect  of  inertia 
and  indifference;  traditions  and  old  routines;  and 
the  poverty  of  imagination  which  results  in  social 
fatalism — the  belief  that  federation  is  impossible 
or  impracticable.  ^ 

The  advantages  of  world  federation  will  be 
irresistible  to  overcome  all  obstacles  once  they  are 
known.  The  economic  advantages  alone  are 
fraught  with  the  highest  significance  for  the  future 
welfare  of  the  human  race.     It  offers  the  only 

^  Novikov  has  devoted  a  chapter  to  the  analysis  of  each  of  the 
chief  obstacles  to  world  federation  in  his  La  federation  de  V Europe 
(Paris,  1901),  and  reaches  the  conclusion  that  they  are  all  based 
upon  illusions  due  to  ignorance  and  the  absence  of  an  enlightened 
public  opinion  in  regard  to  international  relations. 


Economic  Advantages  of  Federation  385 

possibility  of  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  poverty 
by  increasing  production  and  diminishing  enorm- 
ous waste.  The  problem  of  misery  cannot  be 
solved  simply  by  a  redistribution  of  wealth.  Any 
plan  for  abolishing  poverty  by  redistribution 
without  increasing  production  would  be  but  a 
drop  in  the  ocean.  Out  of  every  ten  inhabitants 
of  the  world,  nine  never  have  enough  to  satisfy 
their  hunger.  And  the  same  proportion  lack 
shelter  meeting  the  most  elementary  requirements 
of  decency  and  sanitation.  Income  tax  statistics 
of  all  countries  show  that  out  of  every  10,000  per- 
sons in  the  world,  9999  are  unable  to  spare  as 
much  as  twenty  dollars  per  year  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  their  intellectual  or  artistic  life,  and  millions 
of  men  even  in  the  richest  countries  are  not  able  to 
buy  as  much  as  a  single  book  a  year. 

A  study  of  the  fundamental  statistics  of  wealth 
and  production  shows  that  humanity  considered  as 
a  whole  is  plunged  in  the  deepest  misery.  The  av- 
erage income  per  person  and  per  day  for  the  whole 
human  race  has  been  calculated  by  Jean  de  Bloch 
to  be  about  ten  cents.'  But  if  all  the  fortunes 
in  excess  of  $2000  should  be  confiscated  and  given 
to  the  poor  it  would  add  only  ten  per  cent,  to  their 
income.  The  most  elementary  analysis  of  the 
statistics  shows  that  no  plan  for  redistribution 
can  solve  the  problem  of  poverty. 

When  we  consider  the  increase  of  prosperity 
in  France,  which  resulted  from  its  unity  and  the 

'  See  Jean  de  Bloch,  The  Future  of  War,  1898,  volume  iv. 
25 


386  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

removal  of  the  obstacles  to  commerce  and  the 
division  of  labour  within  its  boundaries,  and 
the  similarly  great  increase  of  prosperity  which  fol- 
lowed the  formation  of  the  German  Customs  Union 
in  1866  and  the  German  Empire  in  1871,  we  can 
realize  what  enormous  possibilities  for  increasing 
human  welfare  will  be  the  result  of  the  federation 
of  the  world.  Jean  de  Bloch  has  estimated  that 
world  federation,  with  the  formation  of  a  world's 
customs  union,  would  increase  the  average  income 
from  its  present  value,  about  fifty-two  centimes 
per  person  and  per  day,  to  between  twenty-eight 
and  thirty-three  francs  per  day  for  each  family  of 
five  which  included  three  workers.  In  other  words, 
the  average  standard  of  living  for  the  human  race 
would  be  raised  to  ten  times  its  present  height  as 
the  result  of  world  federation. 

Nor  is  the  money  cost  the  chief  waste  of  the 
present  system  of  international  anarchy.  Much 
more  important  is  the  diversion  of  the  energies 
and  thoughts  of  men  from  productive  to  unpro- 
ductive purposes.  Projects  for  social  legislation 
must  be  indefinitely  postponed  because  all  the 
governments  are  forced  to  devote  more  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  entire  national  revenue  to  war  pur- 
poses. At  present  the  activities  of  all  men  are 
divided  into  three  parts: 

(i)  The  production  of  wealth  {i.  e.  the  adapta- 
tion of  the  planet  to  their  needs) ;  (2)  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  formidable  military  force  for  the  purpose 
of  making  conquest  and  despoiling  their  neigh- 


Solution  of  the  Problem  of  Misery  387 

hours;  and  (3)  the  preparation  of  another  huge 
military  machine  in  order  not  to  be  despoiled  in 
their  turn. 

The  problem  of  misery  will  be  solved  only  when 
men  renounce  the  last  two  modes  of  activity,  in 
order  to  concentrate  solely  upon  the  first.  There 
is  no  other  way  of  procuring  the  welfare  of  human- 
ity, except  to  cease  massacring  and  despoiling  and 
focus  all  our  energies  upon  production.  But  this 
means  replacing  international  anarchy  by  juridical 
relations,  that  is  to  say,  forming  a  League  of  Peace 
as  the  first  step  towards  world  federation.  In  its 
essence  this  implies  the  substitution  of  solidarity 
for  hostility  because  solidarity  and  federation  are 
synonymous  terms.  Solidarity  is,  of  course,  an 
empty  word  unless  it  is  translated  into  action ;  and 
such  action  must  consist  in  due  respect  for  the  rights 
of  all  members  of  our  human  society,  which  is  to 
say, — world  federation  under  a  system  of  justice. 

The  political  advantages  of  federation  are  almost 
equally  important.  The  object  of  political  organ- 
ization is  to  obtain  for  the  individual  security  for 
his  life  and  his  property.  The  federation  of  the 
world  will  mark  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
hiiman  race  when  political  security  has  been  com- 
plete. The  attempt  to  obtain  security  by  sheer 
bulldog  piling  up  of  armaments  on  the  basis  of  the 
unilateral  aberration  has  broken  down  completely 
in  Europe,  where  casualty  lists  running  into  the 
millions,  and  national  debts  of  tens  of  billions  of 
dollars,  with  income  taxes  exceeding  in  many  cases 


388  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

thirty-three  per  cent.,  have  demonstrated  the  logi- 
cal results  of  the  system  of  international  anarchy  as 
the  method  of  obtaining  security  for  life  and  pro- 
perty. But  federation  and  political  organization, 
which  are  based  on  a  universal  instead  of  a  unilat- 
eral point  of  view  have,  wherever  they  have  been 
instituted,  produced  security  except  against  at- 
tack from  the  outside.  With  the  federation  of  the 
human  race  there  will  be  no  "outside"  left,  and 
political  security  for  the  first  time  in  human  history 
will  be  complete. 

Other  poHtical  benefits  of  world  federation  will 
be  no  less  important.  The  political  institutions 
of  all  States  have  been  deeply  affected  by  the 
condition  of  international  anarchy.  It  is  clear 
that  the  greater  the  social  insecurity,  the  more  it 
is  necessary  to  surrender  powers  and  rights  to  the 
central  government,  and  this  political  centraliza- 
tion has  at  least  three  disastrous  consequences: 
bureaucracy,  the  destruction  of  individuality, 
and  the  non-differentiation  of  social  functions. 
With  the  disappearance  of  the  imperative  need 
for  centralization  in  governments,  the  way  will  be 
open  again  for  individual  initative  to  replace  the 
deadening  hand  and  red  tape  of  bureaucracy. 
The  principle  of  home  rule  and  local  self-govern- 
ment can  be  extended  to  its  widest  limits  and 
differentiation  of  social  functions  can  be  carried 
on  until  the  central  power  is  relieved  of  all  func- 
tions except  its  essential  duties  of  the  protection 
of  life  and  property  (police  and  justice). 


Religion  and  World  Unity  .     389 

One  of  the  most  important  results  of  this  differ- 
entiation of  social  functions  will  be  the  complete 
separation  of  Church  and  State.  Without  war 
the  necessity  for  a  state  religion  would  never  have 
arisen.  In  the  past  the  State  has  been  a  group  of 
institutions  combined  for  the  purpose  of  attacking 
other  States  or  for  defence  against  such  attack. 
In  order  to  render  these  institutions  more  effec- 
tive, they  were  placed  very  early  under  the  all- 
powerful  protection  of  the  religious  spirit.  The 
union  of  Church  and  State  which  resulted  and 
which  still  continues  in  many  parts  of  the  world 
has  been  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  social  pro- 
gress and  a  source  of  misery  for  a  large  part  of  the 
human  race.  Religious  beliefs  have  been  largely 
fashioned  by  the  anarchy  of  international  relations. 
Primitive  ideas  of  a  tribal  god  have  persisted  into 
the  twentieth  century.  The  early  representa- 
tions of  the  gods  as  battling  together  in  heaven 
just  as  warriors  battle  upon  the  earth  led  to  the 
development  of  the  idea  of  God  as  a  man  of  war. 
The  worship  of  the  God  of  War  is  a  direct  result 
of  international  anarchy  and  reveals  itself  in 
religious  intolerance  with  all  its  train  of  evils. 
From  the  moment  when  God  becomes  a  national 
divinity,  religion  loses  the  character  of  an  en- 
nobling universality.  It  ceases  to  represent  the 
worship  of  the  truth.  After  federation,  the  chief 
reason  for  the  union  of  Church  and  State  will  dis- 
appear and  a  true  religion,  freed  from  the  chains 
of  political  reaction,  will  at  last  be  possible.     In 


390  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

Christendom  federation  will  make  possible  a 
religion  of  the  New  Testament  with  its  God  of 
Love  in  place  of  the  religion  of  the  old  Testament 
with  its  God  of  Battles. 

The  advantages  of  federation  for  the  cause  of 
education  will  be  far-reaching.  As  in  the  case  of 
the  Church,  public  instruction  has  been  used  as  an 
instrument  for  strengthening  the  centralized  power 
of  the  State.  In  France  public  instruction  was 
introduced  by  Napoleon  Bonaparte  as  a  measure 
for  increasing  its  military  power.  In  miany 
countries  the  schools  have  been  used  to  teach  a 
narrow  idea  of  patriotism,  based  on  a  distorted 
interpretation  of  history  and  a  hatred  of  the 
"hereditary"  national  enemies.  In  the  midst  of 
an  anarchistic  environment,  the  ideal  of  the  school 
has  been  the  regiment,  with  its  mechanical  autom.a- 
tism.  In  the  environment  of  federation  the  ideal 
will  be  the  most  complete  diversity  and  the 
development  of  individual  character.  For  the 
first  time  adequate  funds  wUl  be  available  to 
reduce  the  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  so  that 
there  will  be  a  possibility  of  giving  sufficient 
attention  to  each  child  to  develop  his  own  individ- 
uality. As  long  as  the  reign  of  international  an- 
archy continues,  armaments  must  consume  all  the 
fruits  of  progress  and  there  can  be  no  hope  of 
providing  adequate  funds  for  social  welfare,  educa- 
tion, science,  art,  or  any  of  the  higher  purposes  of 
civilization. 

The  subjection  of  women,  aa  we  have  seen  in 


A  New  Individualism  391 

Chapter  VIII.,  has  been  the  result  of  militarism 
and  the  dominance  of  brute  force  in  the  world. 
With  the  triumph  of  federation  the  chief  reason  for 
denying  justice  to  women  will  disappear  and  the 
contribution  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  power  of 
womanhood  to  social  progress  will  be  of  immense 
importance. ' 

The  effects  of  federation  upon  social  theory  will 
be  epoch-making.  As  long  as  the  philosophy  of 
force  is  writ  large  in  international  relations,  it 
is  hopeless  to  expect  that  the  human  race  will  have 
a  true  theory  of  human  society,  but  with  the 
establishment  of  federation  in  place  of  anarchy, 
the  way  will  at  last  be  open  for  the  establishment 
of  a  sound  social  philosophy  of  mutual  aid  and 
justice. 

World  federation  will  make  possible  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  individualism  to  replace  the  older 
anti-social  individualism  of  persons  and  of  nations 
— a  new  individualism  founded  upon  the  knowledge 
of  the  advantages  of  association  in  procuring  the 
maximum  of  vital  intensity  for  each  individual. 
The  true  interests  of  each  individual,  arranged  in 
the  order  of  their  importance,  are — 

'  Mme.  Emma  Pieczynska  has  expressed  the  relation  of  the 
rise  of  woman  to  the  establishment  of  justice  as  follows;  "It 
is  always  brute  force  which  covets  domination  or  which  wishes 
to  maintain  it:  it  is  moral  force  which  refuses  to  permit  it.  The 
defenders  of  justice  under  all  its  forms  serve  in  reality  under 
the  same  banner;  their  causes,  in  appearance  diverse,  are  in 
reality  one." — Revue  de  la  morale  sociale,  1899,  March  ist, 
p.  10. 


392  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

1 .  To  live  in  a  world  which  is  rationally  organized 

and  most  perfectly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the 
human  race ; 

2.  To  form  a  part  of  the  most  perfect  society  within 

this  larger  association ; 

3.  To  occupy  as  high  as  possible  a  position  in  this 

society. 

This  classification  of  the  interests  of  each  indi- 
vidual is  in  the  order  of  importance,  but  unfortu- 
nately it  is  the  reverse  of  the  order  in  which  these 
interests  are  presented  to  his  consciousness.  Every 
person  in  seeking  his  own  personal  welfare  (wealth, 
position,  honor)  tends  directly  toward  the  third  ob- 
ject. Patriotism  is  a  means  by  which  all  citizens, 
or  groups  of  citizens,  who  contribute  their  services 
to  advance  the  welfare  of  their  country,  tend  to- 
ward the  second.  But  that  larger  patriotism,  em- 
bracing all  humanity  and  indispensable  alike  for 
the  highest  development  of  the  individual  and 
the  nation,  has  become  conscious  in  the  minds  of 
only  a  few  men,  and  can  become  a  vital  force  only 
with  the  growth  of  such  political  institutions  as 
a  world  court,  a  world  parliament,  and  a  world 
executive. 

Social  theory,  then,  after  advancing  from  indi- 
vidualism through  nationalism  to  internationalism, 
returns  again  to  the  individual  as  the  object  of  the 
highest  development  of  the  process  of  evolution. 
The  first  condition  for  the  maximum  enjo3^ment 
and  the  greatest  expansion  of  life  for  the  individual 


'  Unifying  Thesis  of  Social  Reform  393 

is  the  perfect  adaptation  of  the  planet  to  our  needs. 
When  we  shall  draw  from  the  earth  all  the  resources 
which  it  is  capable  of  furnishing  us,  wealth  will 
attain  its  highest  point.  Then,  since  intellectual 
development  follows  economic  development,  and 
depends  upon  the  latter  for  its  indispensable  in- 
struments, the  greatest  sum  of  wealth  will  give  the 
greatest  amount  of  intelligence  and  the  maximum 
opportunity  for  a  larger  life.  The  organization  of 
the  world,  therefore,  ought  to  be  the  first  interest 
of  every  individual,  to  which  all  other  interests  are 
subordinated.  The  process  of  the  expansion  of 
life  through  association,  which  has  been  a  process 
of  evolution  from  the  family  to  the  horde,  the  tribe, 
the  city,  the  state,  the  nationality  and  the  group 
of  civilizations,  can  attain  its  logical  culmination 
only  through  the  federation  of  the  world. 

Such  are  some  of  the  advantages  which  make 
world  federation  the  unifying  thesis  of  social  reform. 
We  read  often  of  an  army  of  social  workers.  But 
if  we  analyse  the  facts  more  closely,  we  find  that 
they  constitute,  not  an  army  but  rather  a  number 
of  guerilla  bands,  working  at  cross  purposes  and 
often  fighting  each  other  instead  of  the  common' 
enemies  of  the  human  race — ignorance,  disease, 
vice,  greed,  poverty,  and  misery  in  all  its  forms. 
When  it  is  realized  that  the  key  to  the  solution  of 
all  social  problems  is  the  establishment  of  justice, 
social  and  international,  these  guerrilla  bands  of 
social  reformers,  now  struggling  ineffectively 
because  of  their  lack  of  a  common  aim  and  of 


394  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

organization  on  the  basis  of  mutual  aid,  will 
become  an  irresistible  army  victorious  in  the 
struggle  against  one  after  another  of  the  foes  of 
humanity. 

Many  factors  favourable  to  federation  are 
already  powerful  and  are  steadily  growing  in 
strength.  In  many  respects  the  world  is  even  now 
a  unity  and  the  task  of  federation  is  to  give  open 
political  recognition  to  the  economic,  social,  and 
intellectual  facts  of  vital  interdependence.  As 
the  result  of  the  advance  of  science  and  the  con- 
quests of  engineering,  the  earth  has  become  smaller 
every  year,  so  that  division  of  labour  is  now  es- 
tablished upon  a  planetary  scale.  Capital  has  be- 
come international  and  by  means  of  the  telegraph 
and  cable,  stock  exchanges  in  all  the  financial 
centres  of  the  world  have  established  a  sensitive 
nervous  system  by  which  an  injury  to  any  part 
of  the  social  fabric  is  felt  by  all  the  other  parts. 
The  migration  of  labour  is  taking  place  upon  a  scale 
unknown  since  the  folk  wanderings  of  primitive 
times,  and  as  a  result  all  the  problems  of  social 
welfare  and  of  attaining  high  standards  of  life  and 
civilization  have  become  international  problems. 
In  many  cities  of  the  United  States  two-thirds  of 
the  inhabitants  are  foreign-born  or  children  of 
foreign-born  parents,  and  the  solution  of  the  immi- 
gration problem  goes  back  to  its  roots  in  wrong 
social  conditions,  absentee  landlordism,  and  other 
forms  of  injustice  in  Italy  and  South-eastern 
Europe. 


Human  Race  a  Social  Organism  395 

So  completely  have  all  the  interests  of  men  be- 
come internationalized  that  more  than  six  hundred 
international  associations,  ranging  from  organiza- 
tions of  workmen  to  scientific  associations,  have 
been  formed  to  carry  out  on  a  world  scale,  the  ob- 
jects which  they  found  it  impossible  to  achieve  on 
a  national  scale.  Intellectually  the  unity  of  the 
world  is  almost  complete,  in  science,  literature,  and 
art.  By  all  the  tests  of  economic,  social,  and  intel- 
lectual reactions  of  one  part  upon  another,  the 
human  race  already  forms  a  single  social  organism, 
and  it  is  only  because  of  the  backward  condition 
of  the  social  sciences  that  political  unity  has  not 
long  since  been  achieved. 

The  extension  of  the  mental  horizon,  which  has 
resulted  from  the  telegraph,  the  newspaper,  and 
the  moving-picture,  is  a  powerful  factor  making  for 
world  unity.  The  extension  of  the  limits  of  the 
moral  law,  which  is  an  indispensable  factor  of  a 
larger  association,  has  proceeded  very  rapidly  in 
recent  years,  so  that  group  interests  tend  increas- 
ingly to  cut  across  national  boundaries.  The 
socialists  of  different  nations  have  much  more  in 
common  with  each  other  than  they  have  with 
capitalists  in  their  own  country,  and  the  same  is 
true  of  the  capitalists.  These  ethical  factors  will 
naturally  suffer  a  severe  reaction  as  the  result  of 
the  war,  but  the  forces  which  have  produced  them 
in  the  past  are  indestructible  and  the  process  of 
horizontal  instead  of  vertical  stratification  of  social 
interests  will  go  on  irresistibly. 


39^  World  Federation  and  Social  Progress 

Paradoxical  as  it  may  appear,  the  perfection  of 
military  organization  and  its  instruments  must 
be  counted  as  one  of  the  most  powerful  forces 
making  for  world  federation.  Although  militar- 
ism is  to  a  certain  extent  a  cause  of  interna- 
tional anarchy,  it  is  still  more  important  as  a 
symptom  and  effect  of  this  anarchy.  Politi- 
cal leaders  in  all  countries,  alarmed  by  the 
growth  of  military  budgets,  have  tried  in  vain  to 
reduce  these  expenses.  "There  is  some  deep 
underlying  cause  for  the  continued  growth  of  arm- 
aments," said  Sir  Edward  Grey;  and  the  British 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  Lloyd  George,  has 
referred  to  the  armament  competition  of  the  na- 
tions as  "organized  insanity."  The  national  debt 
created  by  the  Great  War  will  produce  almost 
unsupportable  burdens  of  taxation,  and  any  at- 
tempt to  maintain  the  old  system  of  international 
anarchy  will  result  in  a  renewal  of  the  armament 
competition  which  can  have  only  one  of  two 
possible  outcomes — bankruptcy  or  revolution. 

Since  there  is  no  possible  way  of  stopping  the 
increase  of  armaments  except  by  international 
agreement  to  surrender  the  right  of  conquest  and 
aggression,  the  pressure  of  the  burden  of  arma- 
ments themselves,  which  caused  the  Russian  Czar 
to  call  the  First  Hague  Conference,  will  lead  inevit- 
ably to  the  next  step  of  world  organization,  the 
formation  of  a  League  of  Peace.  From  this  step, 
once  taken,  the  road  leads  straight  on  to  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  goal  of  evolution  and  the  highest  aspir- 


Forces  Making  for  World  Unity  397 

ations  of  the  human  soul,  the  perfection  of  the 
species,  and  the  Hfe  more  abundant  for  the  individ- 
ual through  the  establishment  of  world  federation 
under  the  reign  of  justice. 


INDEX 


Aberration,  unilateral,  120-4 

Absorption  and  elimination, 
79-82;  death  by,  185 

Abyssinians,  147 

Adaptation  to  environment, 
29,  56;  constant,  54,  62; 
obtained  by  economic  work, 
63;  rapid  in  economic  pro- 
cesses, 189 

Adriatic,  127 

Affection,  parental  and  filial, 
288-9 

Africa,  48,  100,  144.  See  also 
South  Africa 

Aggression,  dangers  of,  and 
motives  for,  no;  military 
force  and,  113;  social  re- 
actions from,  119;  arma- 
ments for,  176;  futility  of, 
177-8,  222;  "sovereignty" 
implies  right  of,  179;  motives 
for,  179;  best  means  of 
defence,  180;  inevitability 
of  war  and,  182-3;  key  to 
problem  of  force,  184;  un- 
profitable, 213;  repudiated 
by  public  opinion,  220; 
always  precedes  defence, 
366;  changing  attitude  to- 
wards, as  result  of  war,  380; 
preparation  for,  diverts  large 
part  of  energies  of  men,  386; 
calls  forth  preparations  for 
defence,  387;  see  also  Con- 
quest, Defence,  War 

Algerians,  102 

Alliances,  national,  102;  ab- 
sence of  war  between 
members  of,  194 


Allies,  226 

Alps,  114 

Alsace-Lorraine,  125,  128,  145, 
150,  204,  223,  225,  354 

Altruism  and  enlightened  self- 
interest,  364 

America,  see  United  States 

America,  North,  103,  130,  179 

America,  South,  philosophy  of 
force  in,  44;  part  of  interna- 
tional credit  system,  100; 
Jesuits  in,  204;  internation- 
al conditions  on  east  and 
west  coasts  of,  345 

American  Indians,  326-7 

Americans,  xi 

Analogies,  doctrine  of  definite, 
65-71;  biological  and  social, 
85-6;  in  science,  119,  120 

Anarchy,  of  wars  of  religion, 
36;  international,  37,  1 12-13, 
129,  178,  375,  387-8;  a 
social  disease,  109 

Angell,  Norman,  184,  190,  253 
note 

Anglo-Saxon,  128,  145 

Animism,  133 

Annexation,  lust  for,  226 

Antagonism,  between  different 
species,  66-7;  in  elimination 
by  absorption,  80;  artificial 
national,  102-3;  fallacies 
underlying  bchef  in,  236; 
supposed,  between  individ- 
ual and  society,  324;  sup- 
posed, between  individuals, 
324-5;  supposed,  between 
morality  and  self-interest, 
348;  see  also  Struggle 


399 


400 


Index 


Anthropological  romances,  1 56- 

173,  195 

Anthropology,  80 

Arabs,  147 

Archduke  Ferdinand,  100 

Argentine,  345 

Arica,  345 

Aristotle,  xii,  203 

Armaments,  security  and,  121, 
387-8;  Lloyd  George  on,  152, 
396;  unproductive,  153;  for 
aggression,  176,  178;  com- 
petitive, 221,  396;  customs 
duties  and,  257;  lead  to  war, 
374;  based  on  one-sided 
reasoning,  387;  consume 
fruits  of  progress,  390;  Sir 
Edward  Grey  on,  396 

Armies,  172,  381-2;  see  also 
Armaments 

Asia,  48,  100,  103 

Association,  partnerships  of 
human,  vii ;  nature  of  human, 
not  understood,  xiii;  among 
animals,  67-9;  among  cells, 
85-6;  vital  circulation  makes, 
96-9;  nature  of,  97;  multi- 
plies power  of  individual, 
107,  311-12;  benefits  of,  131; 
state  a  voluntary,  194-7; 
a  cosmic  principle,  305; 
synonymous  with  life,  305-6; 
a  means  of  increasing  vital 
intensity  of  individual,  309; 
morality,  intelligence,  and 
wealth  proportionate  to,  312- 
13;  identical  with  intensifica- 
tion of  life,  313;  universal 
among  animals  and  plants, 
315;  a  matter  of  life  or 
death,  319-20;  mechanism 
of,  352;  synonymous  with 
justice,  371;  true  limits  of, 
always  greater  than  con- 
scious, 371;  extension  of 
limits  of,  371,  395 

Assyria,  80,  173 

Astronomy,  xi,  118,  233,  234-5 

Atavism,  war  a  case  of,  219 

Athens,  15,  199,  203 


Attack,  see  Aggression,  Defence 

Australia,  372 

Austria,    127,    145,    154,    204, 

209,  214,  225,  229,  248 
Authority      and      intellectual 

force,  233 

Babylonians,  80 

Bagehot,  Walter,  26 

Balkans,  124,  136,  343-4,  366 

Balkan  Wars,  91,  100,  106 

Banditism,  40,  109,  1 12-13, 
^72,  195 

Barbarism,  202 

Barker,     Ernest,     History     of 
Political  Thought  in  England 
from  Herbert  Spencer  to  the  , 
Present  Day,  27,  30 

Bastiat,  303 

Bavaria,  106,  198-9 

Beaconsfield,  Lord,  343 

Belgium,  46,  225 

Belief,  not  proof  of  reality,  13 1; 
in  witchcraft,  132 

Bentham,  29 

Berlin,  Congress  of,  343 

Bernhardi,  General  von,  war 
depends  on  biological  laws, 
69;  objects  to  world  federa- 
tion because  it  would  abolish 
struggle,  97,  382;  on  opposi- 
tion between  international 
morality    and    self-interest, 

341 

Bernstein,  Eduard,  258 

Bible,  26,  74 

Bill  of  Rights,  259 

Biology,  "woe  to  the  van- 
quished" theory  in,  32; 
relation  to  sociology,  60,  98 

Bismarck,  39,    181,   248,  340, 

342,  343,  349 

Blame,  dread  of,  a  force  for 
moral  progress,  292 

Bloch,  Jean  de.  The  Future  of 
War  (1898),  385  note;  statis- 
tics  of   per   capita   income, 

385 
Bluecher,  146 
Bluntschli,  15 


Index 


401 


Bodin,  Jean,  36,  37,  39,  250, 

375 

Borgia,  Cesare,  35 

Bosnia,  100 

Brazil,  100 

British  Empire,  founded  upon 
force,  44;  period  of  expan- 
sion, 45;  boundaries  of,  loi; 
example  of  federation,  130; 
abolition  of  slavery  in,  205; 
see  Canada,  Australia,  New 
Zealand,  India 

British  South  African  Com- 
pany, 48 

Broda,  Prof.  R.,  340 

Brussels,  317 

Bryce,  James,  247 

Buckle,  29 

Buddhism,  335 

Burr,  Aaron,  127 

Ccesar,  129 

Cain  and  Abel,  74 

Calvin,  207 

Canada,  loi,  166 

Cannibalism,  80,  185 

Carlyle,  26,  27 

Castellio,  207 

Cataclysmic  theory,  115,  137, 

139,  142-3,  145-7,  155.  208-9 
Catholic        and        Protestant 

struggles    in    Holland,    188; 

see  also  Religious  Wars 
Causality,  direct  bond  of,  135- 

7 

Cave-men,  64 

Cecil,  Lord  Hugh,  on  opposi- 
tion between  morality  and 
national  self-interest,  340 

Censorship  of  press,  217 

Centralization  confused  with 
federation,  131 

Chaldeans,  xi,  173 

Chamberlain,  40 

Charity,  undesirable  according 
to  "Social  Darwinism, "  328- 
30;  necessary  according  to 
Darwin,  331 

Chastity,  rational  basis  of,  354 

Chesterton,  G.  K.,  348 

ad 


Chicago,  100 

Chile  and  Peru,  344-5 

China,  influence  of  philosophy 

of    force    in,    45;    economic 

effect  of  floods  upon  outside 

world,   99;   return  of  Boxer 

indemnity,  346 
Christianity,  Kingsley  on  war 

and,  26;  and  the  philosophy 

of  force,  266-7 
Churchill,  Lord  Winston,  122- 

3,346 
Civil  War  of   1861,   105,    135, 

2?5 

Civilist  and  militarist  defined, 

.249 

Civilization,  security  of,  ix; 
ancient,  x;  aids  higher  life, 
8;  war  indispensable  to,  70; 
result  of  co-operation,  96; 
civil  and  foreign  wars  aff"ect 
it  differently,  loi;  produced 
by  preparedness,  122-3;  war 
retards,  124;  produced  by 
war,  133;  has  made  slavery, 
159;  primitive,  165;  war 
requires  state  of  advanced, 
170;  dechne  of  force  in  ad- 
vancing, 189,  210;  result  of 
education,  203;  produced  by 
co-operation  and  division  of 
labour,  210;  reconstructed, 
227;  dependent  upon  justice, 

379 

Colbron,  Grace  Isabel,  265 

Collective  homicide,  and  war, 
9;  cause  of  progress,  62,  91-2, 
268;  civilization  and,  104; 
means  to  an  end,  no;  and 
struggle  between  nationali- 
ties, 145;  and  backward 
races,  203;  effect  of  war 
upon  doctrine  of,  220;  see 
also  War 

Collective  selection,  142,  146, 
148,  150,  151 

Colonialism  and  nationalism, 
251. 

Colonies,  supposed  economic 
advantages  of,  112 


402 


Index 


Colorado,  industrial  war  in,  229 

Columbus,  Christopher,  132 

Commerce,  and  vital  circula- 
tion, 99;  Phoenicians  and, 
196;  piracy  and,  214;  and 
philosophy  of  force,  255-7 

Communication,  effect  of 
growth  of,  96,  107;  and 
struggle  against  physical  en- 
vironment, 102 

Communist  Alanifesto,  262 

Competition  among  individ- 
uals, 8;  progress  due  to 
universal,  20 

Compulsion,  may  disappear, 
viii;  and  militarism,  244 

Comte,  August,  1 16-18 

Conflict,  universal,  necessary 
to  development,  8 

Confusion,  in  philosophy  of 
force:  of  war  with  victory, 
127;  of  unity  with  despotism, 
129;  of  statement  of  fact 
and  judgment,  136;  see  also 
Errors 

Conquest,  of  nature,  xi-xii; 
evolution  and,  1 1 ;  force  used 
in  conquest,  47;  motives 
underlying,  112;  as  means  of 
subsistence,  11 7-1 8;  fear  of, 
abases  human  species,  151; 
of  races,  157;  as  complete 
exploitation,  172;  formation 
of  States  by,  194;  a  limita- 
tion of  life,  201,  203;  as 
cause  of  barbarism,  202; 
the  Great  War  and  desire 
for,  226;  of  forces  of  nature, 
233;  injurious  to  conquerors, 
354;  desire  for,  obstacle  to 
world  federation,  384;  see 
also  Aggression,  Colonies, 
War,  Territory 

Conscience,  the  supreme  moni- 
tor, 298;  education  of,  299; 
and  enlightened  self-interest, 
369;  a  factor  in  happiness, 
370;  and  oppression  of  sub- 
ject peoples,  370;  social,  378 

Constantinople,  124 


Constitution  of  United  States, 
205 

Contiguity,  association  and, 
103 

Co-operation,  basis  of  society, 
vii-viii;  consequences  of,  96; 
basis  of  State,  195;  advances 
civilization,  210;  philosophy 
of,  215;  international,  222; 
principle  of  human,  235;  of 
social  forces,  238;  compul- 
sory, 244,  260;  see  also 
Mutual  Aid,  Association, 
Interdependence 

Copernican  system,  234 

Copernicus,  113 

Corinth,  199 

Cosmic  order,  24 

Courage  as  a  social  virtue, 
290-1 

Credit,  Balkan  War  and  inter- 
national, 100 

Crime  disadvantageous  to 
criminal,  357 

Crimean  War,  26,  103 

Custozza,  43 

Cuvier,  114 

Danes,  147,  370 

Darwin,  Charles,  23,  25,  141, 
168,  230,  232,  237,  239,  268 
ff-,  325,  330-1,  332 

Darwin's  theory  of  social  pro- 
gress, chapter  ix,  268-302; 
misinterpreted,  vi-vii,  xviii, 
xix,  6,  28,  32,  58;  true  theory 
given  in  The  Descent  of 
Man,  25,  268  note;  distorted 
into  the  philosophy  of  force, 
31-51 ;  rediscovery  of,  34,  76, 
269,  303 ;  an  integral  part  of 
his  theory  of  evolution,  271; 
considers  primeval  man  a 
social  animal,  272;  advan- 
tages of  descent  from  a  weak 
species,  272-3;  man  owes 
dominant  position  to  social 
habits,  274;  moral  law  makes 
society  possible,  275 ;  struggle 
between  societies,  277 ;  moral- 


Index 


403 


Darwin's  Theory — Continued 
ity  a  survival  factor,  278; 
social  progress  depends  upon 
institutions  and  ideas,  283; 
the  evolution  of  the  moral 
law,  283-95;  the  causes  of 
moral  advance,  296-301 ; 
world  unity  the  goal  of  evolu- 
tion, 301-2 

Darwin,  Francis,  Life  and 
Letters  of  Charles  Darwin, 
41,  283,  299  note 

Defeat  implied  by  victory, 
120 

Defence,  provisions  for  national, 
109;  result  of  aggression, 
1 1 9-21;  expenditure  for, 
153;  of  war,  175-6;  force 
for,  177;  aggression  and,  178, 
247;  attack  best  means  of, 
180,  247;  presupposes  aggres- 
sion, 366 

Defoe's  Robinson  Crusoe,  54 

Deluge,  1 14 

Democracy,  militarism  and, 
217,  245;  growth  of,  22y;  of 
the  future,  2;^^;  philosophy 
of  force  and,  333;  opposed  to 
conquest,  377 

Demolins,  Edmund,  48 

Denmark,  81,  152,  263 

Despotism,  confusion  of  unity 
with,  129-30;  in  relation  to 
conquest,  202;  diminishes 
vital  intensity  of  govern- 
ment, 365 

Diplomacy,  effect  of  Machia- 
veUi's  The  Prince  on,  35; 
unilateral  aberration  in,  121; 
philosophy     of     force     and, 

254-5 
Discovery,  value  of  scientific, 

xni,  138 
Disease,  war  a  social,  104,  107; 

errors  cause  social,  109,  112; 

see  also  Error 
Dissociation,  war  is,  104-5 
Distortion  of  Darwin,  vi,  26; 

causes  of  success  of,  21-50; 

process    of,    31-3;    see    also 


Error,  Philosophy  of  Force, 
"Social  Darwinism" 

Distribution,  failure  of,  xii 

Division  of  labour,  as  result 
of  struggle  against  environ- 
ment, 56;  increases  produc- 
tive power,  96,  107;  ignored 
by  philosophy  of  force,  102; 
must  have  preceded  slavery, 
159-62;  results  from  intelli- 
gence, 178;  vital  circulation 
and,  192;  advances  civiliza- 
tion, 2 id;  early  manifesta- 
tion of,  273;  beginning  of 
organization,  372;  see  also 
Co-operation,  Civilization 

Dreyfus,  246 

Duahsra  result  of  philosophy 
of  force,  347 

Duel,  127-8 

Eastern  Roman  Empire,  xiv 

Economics,  56,  118,  236 

Egypt,  173,  174,  254 

Egyptians,  xii,  80,  102,  173 

d'Eichthal,  E.,  56 

Elimination,  death  by,  185 

Emery,  Prof.  Henry  C.,  256 

Empire,  British,  see  British 
Empire 

Emulation  not  immoral,  355 

Engels,  Friedrich,  262 

England,  100,  103,  106,  107, 
153,  201,  214,  217,  252,  254, 
257,  264,  367;  see  also 
British  Empire,  Great  Brit- 
ain 

English,  102,  147 

Entente,  102 

Environment,  adaptation  to, 
29;  struggle  against,  54,  110; 
transformed,  57 

Envy  immoral,  355 

Equality;  synonymous  with 
justice,  376 

Error,  social  disease  due  to, 
109;  prevents  world  organi- 
zation, III;  means  death, 
1 1 2-1 3 ;  distorts  social  theory, 
133;  makes  war  inevitable, 


404 


Index 


E  rro  r —  Continued 

i8i;  must  be  replaced  by- 
truth,  211,  228,  236;  causes 
human  misery,  360 

Errors:  war  simplest  means  of 
procuring  subsistence,  116; 
unilateral  aberration,  120- 
4;  war  produces  security, 
121;  peace  secured  by  being 
so  strong  that  victory  is 
certain,  122;  war  has  made 
civilization,  8-17,  123,  133, 
chapters  iii,  iv,  v;  war  solu- 
tion of  question  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  128;  war  inevi- 
table, 132,212-13;  war  as  a 
process  of  association,  194; 
State  an  enterprise  for  con- 
quest, 195;  States  formed  by 
violence,  10,  193-201;  con- 
quest is  fertilization,  201; 
war  necessary  for  organiza- 
tion, 204;  war  advances 
national  welfare,  220;  pros- 
perity of  one  State  at  cost 
of  another,  223 

Errors   of    the   philosophy   of 
force,  see  note,  53; 
biological — chapter  iii,  53-95 ; 
(i)  ignores  the  existence  of 
the  universe,  53-64; 

(2)  confuses  struggle  with  ex- 
termination of  same  species, 

64-79; 

(3)  confuses  struggle  with 
total  death  of  the  van- 
quished, 79-87; 

(4)  misunderstands  true  na- 
ture of  social  struggles,  88-95 ; 
general  sociological — chapter 
iv,  96-113; 

(5)  ignores  fact  of  associa- 
tion, 96,  303-36; 

(6)  establishes  unnatural 
limits  of  association,  97-104; 

(7)  fails  to  recognize  that  war 
is  always  a  dissociation,  104; 

(8)  considers  as  normal,  con- 
dition of  social  disease  due  to 
error,  107-13; 


special  sociological — chapter 
V,  114-74; 

(9)  unscientific  statements, 
one-sided  reasoning,  and 
sophistry,  114-37; 

(10)  ignores  slow  and  invis- 
ible causes,  137-55; 

(11)  anthropological  ro- 
mances, 155-68; 

(12)  pretended  antiquity  of 
war,  168-74; 

(13)  economic  errors,  191-3, 
256-7,  326-32; 

(14)  political  errors,  193-206; 

(15)  intellectual  errors,  206- 
10,  212; 

(16)  supposed  opposition  be- 
tween morality  and  self-in- 
terest, chapter  xi; 

(17)  the  doctrine  that  might 
makes  right,  chapters  xi,  xii 

Esquimaux,  2^^ 

Ethical  factors  the  cause  of 
human  progress,  269-70 

Ethics,  236-7 ;  see  also  Morality 
and  Self-interest 

Euphrates,  161 

Europe,  xv,  i,  71,  99,  123-4, 
146,  152,  166,  182,  195,215- 
20,  225-6,  387,  396 

Europeans,  166,  167 

Evolution,  war  and  the  law  of, 
7;  result  of  competition,  10; 
biological  and  industrial,  1 1 ; 
of  species  and  struggle,  70; 
see  also  Social  Evolution, 
Darwin's  Theory  of  Social 
Progress 

Exchange,  a  secondary  process, 
1 1 8-1 9;  in  primitive  times, 
166;  makes  for  organization, 
196;  without  justice  is  ex- 
ploitation, 372;  see  also 
Division  of  Labour 

Expansion  of  life  and  justice, 
chapter  xii,  362-79;  the 
dominating  principle  of  evo- 
lution, 307 

Exploitation,  109,  IIO-II, 
113,  172,372 


Index 


405 


Fallacies,  see  Errors 

Favre,  Jules,  and  treaty  of 
Frankfort,  342 

Fear,  of  defeat,  148,  151,  154; 
of  armaments,  152;  degrades 
human  race,  153;  causes 
anarchy,  222 

Federation  de  VEiirope,  La,  by 
Novikov,  384  note 

Federation,  of  the  human  race, 
113,  169;  of  the  world,  129, 
135,  221,  238,  299-302;  in 
America,  130;  confused  with 
centralization,  131;  greatest 
obstacle  to,  135;  equivalent 
to  justice,  368;  accords  with 
interests  of  States,  373;  and 
social  progress,  380-397;  see 
also  World  Federation 

Fichte,  4 

Figgis,  Prof.,  Studies  of  Politi- 
cal Thought  from  Gerson  to 
Grotiiis,  267 

Filipinos,  143,  369,  370 

Finland,  150,  263,  370 

Food,  supply  of,  85;  war  means 
of  procuring,  1 16-18,  170; 
most  imperative  need,  184; 
means  for  obtaining,  185; 
see  also  Struggle  for  Exist- 
ence 

Force,  basis  of  society,  viii; 
how  used,  ix;  root  of  moral 
ideas,  5;  futility  of,  112; 
cannot  solve  complex  prob- 
lems, 128;  declining  effec- 
tiveness of,  175-21 1 ;  kinds 
of,  distinguished,  177-8; 
causes  of  futility  of,  189- 
91;  interdependence  makes 
for  futility  of,  191 ;  economic 
futility  of,  193,  222;  political 
futility  of,  195;  States  never 
founded  on,  196;  signifies 
war,  198;  intellectual  futility 
of,  207;  modern  futility  of, 
211;  pirates  find  futility 
of,  214;  social  futility  of,  223; 
social  justice  and,  229-30; 
and  right  identified,  251 ;  and 


public  opinion,  259;  League 
of  Peace  means  minimum 
of,  382;  moral  and  brute, 
391  note;  see  also  Aggres- 
sion, Defence,  Philosophy  of 
Force,  Police  Force,  Social 
Darwinism 

Ford  factory,  311 

Foreign  policies,  democratic 
control  of,  219 

Formosa,  46 

Fort  Sumter,  200 

France,  viii,  42-3,  45,  103, 
105-6,  115,  122,  125-6,  128, 
146-7,  150,  152,  201,  214, 
246,  248,  254,  317,  342-3 

Franconia,  199 

Franco-Prussian  War,  see  War 
of  1870 

Frankfort  Parliament,  200 

Frankfort,  Treaty  of,  342 

Franz  Joseph,  Emperor,  209 

Freedom  of  the  seas,  222 

Free  trade,  222,  258 

French,  102,  103 

French  and  Indian  Wars,  123 

French  Revolution,  150,  224 

Friedensivarte,  Die,  258 

Future  of  War,  The,  by  Jean 
de  Bloch,  385  note 

Galton,  26 

Geneva,  207 

Geology,  114,  137,  167 

George,  Henry,  257 

German  Empire,  130 

Germans,  128,  145 

Germany,  4-5,  16,  41,  46,  81, 
99,  106-7,  115,  125-6,  128, 
152, 154, 198,  201, 204,208-9, 
214,  246,  249,  250,  252-4, 
257,  264,  317,  354,  364; 
see  also  Prussia,  German 
Empire 

God,  idea  of,  inspired  by 
passion  for  justice,  377; 
tribal,  due  to  international 
anarchy,  389 

Goethe,  4 

Golden  Ages,  237 


4o6 


Index 


Golden  Rule,  the  foundation 
of  morality,  294-5;  i^i  inter- 
national relations,  342-6 

Great  Britain,  44,  100,  153; 
see  also  British  Empire, 
England 

Greece,  x,  199,  203 

Greeks,  xii,  147,  282-3 

Grey,  Earl,  48 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  on  growth 
of  armaments,  396 

Grotius,  216 

Guesde,  Jules,  249 

Gumplowicz,  Ludwig,  10 

Habeas  Corpus,  259 

Haeckel,  Ernst,  347 

Hague  Peace  Conference,  15, 
396 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  128 

Hanover,  106 

Happiness,  relation  of  struggle 
to,  63;  association  and,  102; 
health  and,  108;  truth  and, 
236;  evolution  of  moral  law 
and,  291-2,  294-5;  object  of 
life,  315;  social  instincts  and, 
355;  Darwin  on  happiness 
principle,  356 

Hapsburg,  209,  229 

Hawaii,  46 

Health,  makes  for  intensifica- 
tion of  life,  108,  372;  social, 
results  from  justice,  372 

Hegel,  321,  322 

Heraclitus  of  Ephesus,  35,  174 

Heredity,  instincts  and,  73 

Heresy,  188,  226 

Hervey,  Hubert,  48,  50 

History,  need  of  new  kind  of, 
236-7;  a  record  of  the  exten- 
sion of  area  of  justice,  378 

Hobbes,  Thomas,  Leviathan, 
37-9,  156,  195,  216,  272 

Hobhouse,  J.  T.,  Social  Evolu- 
tion and  Political  Theory, 
238,  329 

Hobson,  J.  A.,  Imperialism:  a 
Study,  251 

Holland,  188,  365 


Holy  Grail  of  Truth,  234 
Home  Rule,  223,  254 
Homicide  between  societies,  97 
House  of  Lords,  29,  31 
Humanity,   single  association, 

96,   99,    103,   395;   common 

enemies  of,  394 
Human   nature,    waywardness 

of,  viii;  depraved,  36 
Human    relations,    theory    of 

evolution     applied     to,     33, 

303-36;       unsound      social 

philosophy  in,  51;  anarchy 

in,  109 
Hungary,  204 
Huxley,   Thomas  H.,   20,  26, 

32-4,  269,  270,  271 
Hyndman,  263 
Hypnotism   of   the   defensive, 

120-1,  123 

Idealism,  dependence  upon 
sound  social  theory,  361 

Ideas,  in  relation  to  force,  5; 
institutions  result  of,  88-9; 
transmission  of,  99;  wrong, 
cause  war,  112;  spread 
rapidly,  135,  218;  make 
institutions,  149,  212;  of 
French  Revolution,  150;  war 
established  by  God,  174; 
make  war  inevitable,  181; 
war  for,  188-9;  o^  sover- 
eignty of  States,  197;  change 
of,  in  regard  to  religious 
wars,  206-7,  214;  conduct 
influenced  by,  212;  recon- 
struction of,  238 

Imagination  a  survival  factor, 

299 

Immunity  of  private  property 
at  sea,  222 

Imperialism,  rapid  growth  of, 
21;  contributes  to  spread  of 
philosophy  of  force,  46- 
7;  gospel  of,  48-9;  a  per- 
version of  nationalism,  251- 
3;  the  ethics  of  nations  and, 

253-4 
Indemnities,  112 


Index 


407 


India,  99,  143,  144,  254 
Indians,   American,    102,   123, 

143,  167 
Indian  Wars,  123 
Individualism,  new,  based  on 

advantages    of    association, 

391 

Industrial  Revolution,  232 

"Inferior  races,"  143-4 

Inheritance,  variations  per- 
petuated by,  29;  in  militant 
society,  244 

Injustice,  identical  with  death, 
28;  to  Indians,  123;  means 
mutilation,  193;  conquerors 
and,  202;  causes  maximum 
of  force,  229;  passive — - 
equivalent  to  a  mutilation, 
363 ;  active — equivalent  to 
an  auto-mutilation,  364;  uni- 
versal phenomenon  of  re- 
action to,  366;  synonymous 
with  unhappiness,  368; 
causes  national  hatreds,  371 ; 
results  in  unemployment, 
372 

Insecurity,  result  of  war,  121, 
151;  of  high  seas,  214 

Instinct,  xvii;  transmitted,  73; 
loss  of,  in  man,  74;  reason 
and,  168 

Institutions,  created  by  men, 
132;  result  from  ideas,  148-9, 
212;  war  and  new,  150; 
primitive,  156-73 

Intellect,  rendered  war  possible 
between  men,  74-5;  a  pro- 
duct of  social  habits,  275 

Intellectual  progress  and 
world  federation,  393 

Intellectual  Revolution,  iio, 
113,  211,  215,  220,  224,  227, 
230,  233-4,  238,  380 

Intemperance,    why    immoral, 

354 
Interdependence,  makes  social 
organism,  96,  107;  limits  of, 
99-101;  makes  force  futile, 
191;  intellectual,  218;  makes 
every    mutilation   an   auto- 


mutilation,  364;  makes  pros- 
perity of  our  neighbours 
essential  to  our  own,  366; 
history  a  record  of  increas- 
ing solidarity,  371;  see  also 
Co-operation,  Division  of 
Labour 

Interests,  play  of  free,  10; 
rights  and  true,  126;  of 
individuals,  392 

Internationalism,  217 

International  justice,  211,  228- 
30,  233,  238 

International  law,  216,  226 

International  morality,  221 

International  police,  see  Police 
Force,  International 

International  relations,  philo- 
sophy of  force  as  theory  of, 
40;  competition  of  rival 
empires  in,  45;  study  of 
economics  basis  for  sound, 
236 

Ireland,  223,  254 

Isolation,  policy  of,  218 

Italia  irredenta,  225 

Italians,  147 

Italy,  16,  35,  43,  46,  214,  225, 
367 

James,  William,  interprets 
philosophy  of  force,  18; 
moral  equivalent  for  war,  64 

Japan,  45-6,  99,  254 

Japanese,  102,  103 

Jena,  146-7 

Jesuits,  204 

Jingoism,  obstacle  to  world 
federation,  384 

Jordan,  David  Starr,  140 

Junkers,  208-9 

Justice,  in  biological  realm,  27; 
identical  with  life,  28;  asso- 
ciation and,  102;  Penn  suc- 
ceeds by,  123;  produces  real 
union,  204;  philosophy  of, 
215,  239;  men  fight  only  for, 
225;  force  inversely  pro- 
portional to,  230;  and  the 
expansion  of  life,  chap,  xii, 


4o8 


Index 


Justice — Continued 

362-79;  identical  in  nature 
with  morality,  362;  passion 
for,  362;  equivalent  to  fed- 
eration, 368 ;  conditions 
intensity  of  activity,  368; 
synonymous  with  associa- 
tion, 371;  analogous  to  or- 
ganization, 372;  results  in 
social  health,  372;  necessary 
for  security,  374;  the  condi- 
tion for  liberty,  375;  synony- 
mous with  equality,  376; 
a  condition  of  democracy, 
377;  inspired  idea  of  God, 
377;  message  of  Hebrew 
prophets,  378;  the  basis  of 
social  reform,  378;  and  the 
new  social  conscience,  378; 
history  a  record  of  its  exten- 
sion, 378;  the  condition  of 
positive  selection,  379;  the 
basis  of  material  well-being, 
379;  the  condition  of  civiHza- 
tion,  379;  and  the  rise  of 
woman,  391;  the  goal  of 
evolution,  397 

Kant,  Immanuel,  4,  234,  237, 
296,  298,  302,  332 

Kepler,  Johann,  235 

Kidd,  Benjamin,  Social  Evolu- 
tion, criticism  of  his  defini- 
tion of  religion,  359 

Kingsley,  26 

Korea,  46 

Kropotkin,  Prince,  Mutual 
Aid  a  Factor  of  Evolution, 
31,  34,  75-6,  78,  273,  303, 
314,  317-18,  333,  336 

Labour,  division  of,  see  Divi- 
sion of  Labour 

Labour,  migratory,  99 

Labour  troubles  and  the  philo- 
sophy of  force,  261 

Lacombe,  107 

Lagorgette,  J.,  167,  172 

Lamarck,  28,  283 

La  Plata,  166 


Laponge,  V.  de,  71-2,  171 

Law  and  Order  League,  179 

Law  of  acceleration,  210 

Law  of  least  resistance,  161 

Law,  Roman,  and  philosophy 
of  force,  259 

Laws,  of  social  world  unde- 
veloped, xi;  need  of  under- 
standing of,  xiv;  of  nature, 
38;  of  mind,  234 

Lea,  General  Homer,  18 

League  of  Peace,  military 
struggle  and  the,  221-2; 
defence  and  the,  247;  next 
step  towards  world  federa- 
tion, 381 ;  a  practical  political 
issue,  381;  leads  inevitably 
to  judicial,  legislative,  and 
executive  functions,  38 1 ;  will 
not  abolish  force,  but  modify 
conditions  under  which 
force  is  used,  381 ;  establishes 
an  international  police  force 
composed  of  co-operating 
national  armies  and  navies, 
381 ;  will  not  abolish  struggle, 
382;  will  raise  struggle  to 
higher  and  more  fruitful 
stages,  383;  requires  no 
change  in  human  nature, 
383 ;  depends  not  on  sacrifice, 
but  on  recognition  of  true 
interests,  384;  made  neces- 
sary by  economic  pressure, 
396 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  206-7 

Le  Dantec,  Felix,  59 

Lee,  General  Robert  E.,  205 

Leipsic,  146-7 

Lemeere,  Professor,  317 

Lewes,  26 

Liberty,  condition  for  fullest 
development,  364;  justice 
necessary  condition  for,  375 

Lichtenberger,  H.,  39 

Limits  of  association,  see  Asso- 
ciation, Limits  of 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  245 

Lissa,  43 

Lloyd  George,  David,  152, 396 


Index 


409 


Logic,  120,  237 

London,  xii,  xiv 

Louis  XIV.,  105,  128 

Love,  and  the  social  instincts, 

288-9;    for    our    neighbour, 

346-8 
Lubbock,  Sir  John,  26 
Luxemburg,  248 
Lyell,  WilHam,  282 

Macedonia,  91 

MachiavelH,  35,  36,  39 

Machiavellianism  and  "real- 
politik, "  252 

Magna  Charta,  259 

Magyars,  370 

Mahan,  Admiral,  176-7,  183, 
255,  260 

Maine,  Sir  Henry,  28,  29,  30 

Malthus,  T.  R.,  An  Essay  o« 
Population,  325-8 

Manchuria,  46,  75 

Markets,  need  of  conquest  for, 
176 

Marx,  Karl,  262,  322 

Mena,  173-4 

Mercantilism,  256,  366 

Metchnikov,  85 

Mexico,  136,  206,  254 

"  Might  makes  right,  "  doctrine 
of,  27,  41-3,251,254,  345 

Militancy  condemned  by  Spen- 
cer, 15 

Militarism,  defined,  5;  Profes- 
sor James  and,  18;  in  Middle 
Ages,  107;  uses  all  instru- 
ments, 139;  reverse  selection 
of,  1 40-1;  father  of,  174; 
defenders  of,  176;  war  may 
strengthen,  216;  democracy 
and,  217,  245-6;  influence  of 
increase  of,  218;  crusade  to 
crush,  225;  relation  to  con- 
servatism, 249;  and  protec- 
tionism, 257-8;  and  social- 
ism, 261-3;  opposed  to  rise 
of  woman,  265;  cause  of 
downfall  of  Greeks,  282; 
obstacle  to  world  federa- 
tion,    384;     subjection     of 


woman  and,  391;  see  also 
Philosophy  of  Force 

Militarist,  definition  of,  249 

Militarization  of  mind,  215, 
217 

Military  spirit  endangers 
peace,  248 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  xiv,  251 

Molinari,  de,  21 

Moltke,  Marshal  von,  15, 
34,  109,  174,  181 

Mommsen,  4 

Monaco,  Prince  of,  128 

Mongols,  147 

Monists,  347 

Monopoly,  ill 

Montaigne,  xv 

Moral  action  and  social  re- 
actions, 352 

Moral  law,  basis  of  progress, 
20,  230,  237;  Darwin's  theory 
of  the  evolution  of,  283- 
96;  genealogy  of,  284-6, 
294-5 !  extension  of  limits  of, 

395 

Moral  progress,  A.  R.  Wallace 
on,232;religionand,293,300 

Moral  sense,  the  most  import- 
ant factor  in  social  evolution, 
274;  the  basis  of  human 
society,  274;  distinguishes 
man  from  animals,  283;  a 
product  of  the  social  instincts, 
284-5;  development  of,  285- 
6;  changes  with  conditions, 
291-2 

Morale  et  Vinteret  dans  les 
rapports  individnels  et  inter- 
nalionaux.  La,  by  Novikov 
(1912),  339  note 

Morality,  basis  of  social  pro- 
gress in  Darwinian  theory, 
2^7,  274-5,  276-9,  282;  a 
factor  in  evolution,  278-9, 
283-96;  rational  foundations 
of,  346-7;  deduced  from 
principle  of  association,  356; 
is  highest  self-interest,  361; 
identical  in  nature  with 
justice,  362 


410 


Index 


Morality  and  self-interest, 
chapter  xi,  339-61;  (a)  in 
international  relations,  339- 
6;  supposed  opposition  be- 
tween, 339-42;  identity  of, 
342-6;  {b)  in  individual  rela- 
tions, 346-59 ;  supposed 
opposition  between,  346- 
9;  results  from  ignorance  of 
advantages  of  association, 
349;  logically  leads  to  con- 
tradiction, 350-1;  psycho- 
logical factors  in  self-in- 
terest, 356 

Morley,  John,  272 

Mortality,  in  Russia,  78; 
among  children,  79;  econo- 
mic selection  and,  142 

Murray,    Major    Stewart    L., 

255 

Mutual  aid,  as  a  law  of  nature, 
chapter  x,  303-36;  in- 
creases productive  power, 
96;  increases  vital  intensity, 
108,  316;  a  survival  factor, 
273;  foundation  of  religion 
and  ethics,  303,  334-5 

Myers,  Philip  Van  Ness,  His- 
tory as  Past  Ethics,  267 

Myopia,  social,  60 

Napoleon,     Buonaparte,     146, 

349 

"National  honour,"  127,  129 

Nationalism,  the  highway  to 
internationalism,  251;  per- 
verted in  imperialism,  251 

Nationality,  produced  by  war, 
16;  war  and  formation  of, 
105-7;  concessions  to  spirit 
of,  209;  debased,  251;  prin- 
ciple of,  367 

Nations,  society  of,  9;  diplo- 
macy of  European,  35;  per- 
petual war  among,  37; 
founded  upon  law,  44;  see 
also  States,  Governments, 
International 

Natural  selection,  Darwin's 
theory  of,  6;  importance  of 


theory  of,  24;  justifies  philo- 
sophy of  force,  34;  in  German 
nation,  42;  course  of,  61 

Navalism,  225 

Navy,  British,  152 

Neomercantilism,  256 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  235,  302 

New  York,  xii,  xiv,  100 

New  Zealand,  70,  103 

Nietzsche,  Friedrich,  13,  230- 
I,  266-7,  331-2 

Nile,  161 

Norway,  152,  263 

Novikov,  J.,  V,  7,  17,  28,  34, 
40,  42,  43,  184,  218,  303; 
La  critique  du  Darwinisnje 
social  (1910),  53  note;  La 
Jederatio7i  de  V Europe  (1901), 
384  note;  La  justice  et 
V expansion  de  la  vie  (1905), 
362  note;  La  morale  et 
I'interet  dans  Ics  rapports 
individiiels  et  internationaux 
(1912),  339  note;  Les  luttcs 
entre  societes  humaines  et 
leurs  phases  svcccssives  (3d 
edition,  1904),  184  note 

Oceania,  46,  48 

Organization,  necessity  for, 
196-7;  produces  progress, 
203-4;  of  new^  Europe,  215; 
analogous  to  justice,  2)7^ 

Pacific  Islands,  100 

Palatinate,  199 

Pan-European  State,  201 

Pan-Hellenic  State,  200-1 

Paris,  xii 

Park,  Mungo,  290 

Patagonia,  166 

Patriotism,  purpose  of,  392; 
need  for  larger,  392 

Peace,  Ruskin  and  Nietzsche 
on,  13;  Moltke  on,  15;  armed, 
122,  222;  effects  of  mihtar- 
ismin,  141;  treaty  of,  215-16; 
movement  the  unifj'ing thesis 
of  social  reform,  238 


Index 


411 


Pearson,    Professor   Karl,    47, 

51,  142,  144 
Penn,  William,  123 
Pennsylvania,  123 
Persia,  46,  loi 
Peru  and  Chile,  344-5 
Philip  II.,  188 
Philippines,    46,     143,    203-4, 

253-4 
Philosophy  of  force,  defined,  5; 
scientific  foundation  of,  6, 
25;  German  development 
of,  10, 41 ;  Renan  and  the,  12; 
Roosevelt  and  the,  16;  uni- 
versal acceptance  of,  17, 
22;  Professor  James  inter- 
prets, 18;  Spencer  and  the, 
30;  basis  of  statesmanship, 
35-7;  French  development 
of,  42;  Italian  development 
of,  43;  disregards  economic 
production,  62;  and  theory 
of  progress,  90-5;  ignores 
struggle,  96;  social  error  of, 
97;  ignores  association,  loi; 
progress  and  the,  107;  ex- 
ploitation and  the,  no;  su- 
perficial comparisons  of,  119; 
errors  and  the,  134;  inter- 
national, 135;  social  myopia 
in,  141;  ignores  existence  of 
universe,  145;  ultima  ratio  of, 
147;  primitive  conditions  de- 
scribed by,  156-74;  crux 
of,  184;  fatalistic  tlieory  of 
society  in,  212;  applied  to 
theory  of  State,  216;  v.;a- 
may  strengthen,  217;  teach- 
ing of  history  and,  237;  re- 
action upon  society,  243; 
and  the  "offensive  defen- 
sive," 247;  and  the  classic 
diplomacy,  254-5;  and  com- 
merce, 255-7;  ^^'^  Roman 
Law,  259;  and  business 
competition,  260-1;  and 
labour  troubles,  261;  and 
socialism,  261-3,  322;  and 
the  rise  of  woman,  263-5; 
and   suffragettes,    264;   and 


race  prejudice,  265;  and  the 
penal  system,  265-6;  vs. 
Christianity,  266-7;  a^iid  in- 
dividual ethics,  266;  neg- 
lects evolution  of  ethics,  283 ; 
contrasted  with  Darwin's 
theory  of  society,  287-8; 
ignores  association,  304,  309- 
10;  pictures  universe  as  a 
perpetual  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, 307;  supports  pessi- 
mism, 308,  316;  crushes 
idealism,  308;  belittles  asso- 
ciation, 317;  its  false  logic, 
319-20;  says  progress  results 
from  homicide,  321;  de- 
veloped in  Germany,  321; 
logically  leads  to  extinction 
of  life,  322;  its  reductio 
ad  absurdiim,  323;  its  effect 
upon  democracy  and  reli- 
gion, 333;  chief  obstacle  to 
world  federation,  380 

Phoenicians,  166,  196 

Physics,  118 

Pieczynska,  Mme.  Emma,  jus- 
tice and  the  rise  of  woman, 
391  note 

Piracy,  213,  373 

Poland,  145,  150,  204,  354, 
366,  370 

Police  force,  in  the  Philippines, 
204;  international,  and  a 
League  of  Peace,  381;  made 
up  of  co-operating  national 
armies  and  navies,  381 ;  used 
in  bolialf  of  a  universal 
conception  of  justice,  381; 
tliiTcrs  from  rival  armies  and 
navies,  382;  essential  to 
l^revent  aggression,  382; 
essential  duty  of  govern- 
ment, 388 

Political  science,  236 

Pollock,  Sir  Henry,  31 

Pope,  Alexander,  132 

Portugal,  46 

Possessions,  see  Conquest 

Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc,  135- 
6 


412 


Index 


Poverty,  world  federation  ne- 
cessary to  abolition  of,  385; 
average  per  capita  income, 
52  centimes,  385;  Jean  de 
Bloch  on,  385 

Praise,  love  of,  a  force  for 
moral  progress,  292 

Praxiteles,  203 

Preparedness,  122 

Primitive  life  of  man,  157-73 

Production,  origin  of  indus- 
trial, 10;  primary  processes 
of,  118;  instruments  of,  139; 
war  preceded  by,  170 

Progress,  due  to  war,  7,  9,  11, 
12,  16,  17,  62;  Darwin's 
theory  of,  20;  and  labour, 
63;  and  collective  homicide, 
91-3;  Bernhardi  on,  97;  wars 
and,  107,  123;  invisible 
causes  of,  139,  143;  conquest 
and,  152;  justice  and,  229; 
philosophy  of  force  and,  232 ; 
see  also  Social  Progress, 
Moral  Progress 

Prophets,  Hebrew,  prediction 
of  reign  of  justice,  378 

Protectionism  and  militarism, 
257-8 

Protestant  and  Catholic  stru.*^- 
gles  in  Holland,  188;  see 
also  Religious  Wars 

Prussia,  x,  i,  41,  146-7,  150, 
152,  198,  229,  248;  see  also 
Germany,  German  Empire 

Prussianism,  225,  322 

Prussians,  125,  145 

Ptolemaic  system,  234 

Public  opinion,  effective,  214; 
militarized,  217;  repudiates 
aggression,  220;  influence 
of  united,  224;  methods 
of  changing,  227;  and  the 
use  of  force,  259 

Races,  struggle  of,  12,  14,  25, 
4.7-8,  50,  53,  143-5;  associa- 
tion of  different,  103;  pre- 
judice toward  different,  384 

Rationalism,  victory  of,  207 


Ratzenhofer,  G.,  10,  17,  162- 
5,  166-7,  193..  287 

Reason,  and  instinct,  168; 
a  root  of  moral  law,  291; 
alters  moral  standards,  297- 
8;  religion  and,  346-7,  360 

Reconstruction  of  society 
needed,  215,  220,  234,  238 

Redskins,  see  Indians,  Ameri- 
can 

Reformation,  xviii,  233 

Reichstag,  147 

Reign  of  Terror,  150 

Religion,  wars  for,  188,  206-7; 
a  factor  in  moral  progress, 
293,  300;  reason  and,  346- 
7,  360;  a  pre-rational  sanc- 
tion for  morality,  359-60; 
federation  and  a  true,  389 

Renaissance,  233 

Renan,  Ernest,  12,  125-6,  129, 
130,144-6,148,151,154,251; 
Histoire  du  peuple  d'Israel 
(1893),  378  note 

Reproduction,  Darwin  on,  82 

Retribution,  mechanism  of, 
342-6 

Revanche  party  in  France,  128, 

343 
Right,  definition  of,  357 
Righteousness  of  war,  124-5 
Rights,  true  interests  and,  126; 

national,  131 
Rise  of  tolerance,  226 
Roberts,  Lord,  181,  255 
Roessler,  Professor,  147 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  207 
Romances,        anthropological, 

155;    of    primitive    slavery, 

159;   of   primitive   hostility, 

162;    of    Hobbesian     War, 

163 
Roman  Empire,  129,  335 
Romans,  xii,  147 
Rome,  X,  xiv,  15,  114 
Roosevelt,     ex-President,     16, 

17,  182 
Rousseau,  J.  J.,  150 
Ruskin,  John,  war  source  of  all 

arts,  13 


Index 


413 


Russia,  46,  103,  124,  152,  154, 
201,  204,  214,  229,  249,  252, 
253-4.  344.  354.  366,  370, 
372 

Russianism,  225 

Russian  Revolution,  224 

Russians,   102,   103,   124,   147, 

154 
Russo-Japanese  War,  45,  46 

Sabotage,  261 

Safety,  national,  see  Security 

St.  Bartholomew's  Day,  36 

San  Stefano,  treaty  of,  343-4 

Sarolea,  Dr.  Charles,  The 
Anglo-German  Problem,  182 

Saxony,  198 

Say,  Jean  Baptiste,  311 

Schallmayer,  Dr.,  148 

Schiller,  4 

Schleiermacher,  97 

Science  and  religion  recon- 
ciled by  true  Darwinian 
theory,  360 

Science  of  statesmanship,  35 

Scotland,  100 

Security,  association  and  na- 
tional, 102;  fallacy  of  war 
producing,  12 1,  151;  League 
of  Peace  means,  221;  ob- 
tained through  establish- 
ment of  justice,  374;  need 
for,  motive  of  League  of 
Peace,  381;  cannot  be  ob- 
tained by  armaments,  387; 
can  only  be  obtained  by 
federation,  387 

Selection,  positive,  establish- 
ment of  justice  the  condi- 
tion for,  379 

Selective  homicide,  141-2,  149 

Self-defence,  see  Defence 

Self-interest  and  morality,  see 
Morality 

Selfishness,  if  short-sighted, 
defeats  its  own  end,  275; 
adds  to  power  of  sympathy, 

275-6 
Selkirk,  Alexander,  54 
Servia,  127,  370 


Shaw,  George  Bernard,  xiii 

Siberia,  75 

Sino- Japanese  War,  45 

Slavery,  beginning  of,  11; 
made  possible  industrial 
stage,  133 ;  romance  of  primi- 
tive, 158-63;  result  of  civili- 
zation, 161,  171;  conquests 
and,  187;  war  and  the 
abolition  of,  205;  a  cause  of 
Greek  retrogression,  282; 
why  immoral,  354;  demoral- 
izes masters,  369 

Smith,  Adam,  29,  303 

Social  and  individual  interests, 

359 

Social  conscience  and  social 
justice,  378 

"Social  Darwinism,"  defined, 
7;  falsity  of,  19;  not  created 
by  Darwin,  20;  causes  of 
success  of,  21-2;  Spencer 
and,  29;  as  justification  for 
brutal  instincts,  35;  effect 
on  Bismarck,  39;  basis  of 
political  theory,  40;  war  of 
1870  popularizes,  41-2; 
consummation  of,  50-1 ; 
denies  struggle  against 
nature,  56,  57;  contradicted 
by  Darwin  and  biologists, 
59,  60;  unscientific  compari- 
sons of,  67-9;  on  collective 
combats  in  animal  kingdom, 
69,  70;  law  of  struggle  in, 
78;  makes  false  comparison 
between  biological  and  social 
facts,  84;  affirms  that 
preparation  for  war  causes 
progress,  92;  war  and  the 
survival  of  the  fittest,  140; 
distorted  into  imperialism, 
251;  and  mercantilism,  256; 
and  socialism,  262;  contra- 
dicts Darwin's  view  of  basis 
of  society,  287;  developed  in 
Germany,  321;  condemned 
charity  and  "maudlin  senti- 
ment," 328-30;  justified  evils 
of  society,  329-30;  created 


414 


Index 


"Social  Darwinism" — Con. 

gulf  between  reason  and 
morality,  347;  see  also  Philo- 
sophy of  Force 

Social  Democrats,  German, 
208 

Social  efficiency,  48 

Social  engineering,  vii,  226 

Social  evolution,  place  of  war 
in,  186;  progressive  modifica- 
tion of  conflict  in,  210;  world 
federation  goal  of,  380 

Social  fatalism,  132,  213,  384 

Social  health,  result  of  justice, 
372 

Social  instincts,  basis  of  moral 
sense,  285;  and  happiness, 
355-6. 

Social  microscopy,  145 

Social  myopia,  141 

Social  nature  of  man,  a  sur- 
vival factor,  276;  leads  to 
moral  sense,  284-6;  an  ex- 
tension of  family  affection, 
288 

Social  organism,  96,  107,  395 

Social  philosophy,  235-6 

Social  progress,  due  to  war 
according  to  "Social  Dar- 
winism," 7-17;  slow  and 
invisible  causes  of,  139,  143; 
due  to  complex  forces,  155; 
forces  can  be  observed  in 
daily  life,  195;  due  to  intel- 
lectual struggle,  213;  justice 
the  true  path  of,  229-30; 
philosophy  of  force  has 
retarded,  232;  Huxley's 
theory  of,  270-1;  Wallace's 
theory  of,  271;  Darwin's 
theory  of,  271  ff.;  true  causes 
of,  279-80,  293-4;  snd  world 
federation,  chapter  xiii,  380- 

97 

Social  psychology,  140 

Social  reform,  world  federation 

the  condition  of,  393-4 
Social  revolution,  234 
Social    science,    i4or   see    also 

Social  Engineering 


Social  struggle,  226 

Social  theory,  world  federation 
will  make  possible  sound, 
391;  individualism,  national- 
ism, and  internationalism  in, 
392 

Social  workers,  army  of,  393 

Socialism,  and  military  force, 
249;  and  the  philosophy  of 
force,  261-3, 322; and  "Social 
Darwinism,"  262;  and  the 
class  struggle,  323-4 

Socialists,  xv,  263-4 

Society,  science  of,  vii;  com- 
plexity of,  viii,  x;  has  not 
advanced,  xiv;  use  of  force 
in,  5;  of  nations,  9,  216; 
industrial  system  of,  11; 
industrial  type  of,  244-5; 
militant  type  of,  244-5; 
supposed  opposition  to  in- 
dividual interests,  324;  see 
also  Government,  Inter- 
dependence, States 

Socinus,  207 

Sociology,  problem  of,  3,  12; 
relation  to  biology,  60;  and 
Herbert  Spencer,  65 ;  Kropot- 
kin  on,  76;  axioms  of,  88; 
errors  of,  96;  relation  of 
biology  to,  98 ;  in  metaphysi- 
cal stage,  115,  140;  scientific 
methods  in,  117,  134,  167, 
236;  the  science  of  human 
symbiosis,  320 

Socrates,  xii 

Soldier,  120;  see  Armaments, 
Police  Force 

Sophisms,  see  Errors 

South  Africa,  223,  254,  277 

South  America,  see  America, 
South 

Sovereignty,  comer-stone  of 
theory  of  State,  36-7;  alli- 
ances and  State,  102;  aggres- 
sion and,  179;  right  to 
declare  war  equals,  200; 
opposed  to  highest  interests, 
373;  usually  means  right  of 
aggression,  375 


Index 


415 


Spain,  147,  188 

Sparta,  199 

Special  Creation,  137 

Spencer,  Herbert,  vi,  8,  14, 
17,  26,  28-30,  64-8,  75,  105, 
132,  193,  195,  243-5,  287, 
321,  325,  328 

State,  the,  purpose  of,  3; 
formation  of,  10;  Machia- 
velli's  theory  of,  35;  Bodin's 
theory  of,  36;  Hobbes'  theory 
of,  37-8;  law  of  struggle 
and  the,  97;  limits  of  associa- 
tion and  boundaries  of,  100; 
violence  and  formation  of, 
193-6;  voluntary  associa- 
tions and,  197;  formation 
of,  prevented  by  violence, 
199;  a  national  god,  249; 
Treitschke's  theory  of,  250, 
321;  its  claims  nothing  in 
themselves,  310 

Stengel,  Baron  Karl  von,  15 

Strassburg,  128 

Struggle,  against  environment, 
55-9,  62-3,  75;  defined  by 
d'Eichthal,  57;  not  exter- 
mination, 64,  79-83;  con- 
fusion of  Spencer  on,  66-7; 
true  nature  of  social,  88-90; 
association  more  important 
than,  96-7;  as  natural  law, 
119;  between  men,  139; 
between  races,  143-5;  be- 
tween animals,  164-5,  169; 
between  men  and  animals, 
169;  successive  forms  of, 
183-9;  changed  aspect  of,  in 
social  evolution,  276;  be- 
tween societies,  277-8;  not 
the  object  of  life,  314;  uni- 
versal in  nature,  321;  not 
abolished  by  world  federa- 
tion, 382;  raised  to  higher 
and  more  fruitful  stages,  383 

"Struggle  for  existence,"  6, 
8,  32,  39,  40,  58-9,  65,  77, 
79,  81,  189 

Struggle,  intellectual,  true  cause 
of  progress,  213,  234 


"  Struggle  of  races,"  progress 
and,  12,  14,  47,  53;  Darwin's 
theory  of,  25;  imperialism 
and  the,  45,  48-50;  results 
in  survival  of  backward 
races,  143-5 

Subsidies,  iii 

Suffrage,  woman,  and  philo- 
sophy of  force,  263-5,  391 

Survival    of    backward    races, 

143 
"Survival  of  the  fittest,"  7,  8, 

27.  31-3.  40,  51,  61,  75,  146 
Sweden,  62,  152,  263 
Switzerland,     103,     130,     152, 

372. 

Symbiosis,"  in  lichens,  306; 
sociology  the  science  of 
human,  321 

Sympathy,  a  survival  factor, 
276,  331;  its  gradual  exten- 
sion coincident  with  rise  in 
morality,  301 

Syndicalists,  xv 

Tacna,  345 

Tariff,  loi.  III,  218,  257 

Temperance,  354 

Territory  extended  by  con- 
quest, 125-6 

Thebes,  199 

Theory,  of  the  State,  3,  10, 
35.  36,  37-8,  216,  250,  321; 
cataclysmic,  115,  137,  139, 
142-3,  145-7,  155,  208-9; 
of  history,  208,  237;  of  social 
progress,  230,  239,  270,  271 
ff.,  391;  of  evolution,  232, 
283-96;  of  human  relation- 
ships, 233,  235;  of  moral  law, 
237,  291-2,  294-5 

Thirty  Years'  War,  37,  216 

Tolerance,  rise  of,  207 

Tolstoi,  Leo,  Anna  Karenina, 
conflict  between  science  and 
reason,  348 

Trade,  war  and  stagnation  of, 
100;  military  power  and,  1 12 

Transportation,  rapid,  ad- 
vances civilization,  210 


4i6 


Index 


Transylvania,  204 

Treaty,  of  Paris,  152;  Frank- 
fort, 342 ;  San  Stefano,  343-4 

Treitschke,  250,  310,  322,  341 

Trentino,  204 

Truth,  widespread  belief  no 
proof  of,  131;  not  estab- 
lished by  force,  207;  must 
replace  error,  211,  236;  shall 
make  you  free,  23 1 ;  induc- 
tive method  and  search  for, 
233;  Holy  Grail  of,  234;  a 
social  virtue,  290;  error  and, 
360 

Turkey,  91,  195,  214,  263, 
365-6 

Turks,  123,  136,  203 

Tylor,  26 

Tyndall,  26 

Ulster,  246 

Ultima  ratio,  147 

Unhappiness,  synonymous  with 
injustice,  368 

Unilateral  aberration,  see  Aber- 
ration, Unilateral 

United  States,  imperialism  in, 
461  253-4;  protective  tarifif 
in,  III;  result  of  federation, 
130,  367;  Indians  and  Filipi- 
nos in,  143,  204;  progress  in, 
152;  Civil  War  in,  205; 
standing  army  policy  of, 
246;  free  from  military  caste, 
247;  ability  to  support  popu- 
lation, 326-7 

United  States  of  Europe,  201 

Unity,  confusion  of  despotism 
with,  129-30;  of  the  world, 

131 

Universality,     rule     of,     125; 

truth  and,  132 
Universe,    ignored    by    social 

Darwinists,      55;      struggle 

against,  58 

Vancouver  Island,  281 
Variation,     in     criticism,     ix; 

Darwin's  belief  in  accidental, 

29^ 


Venezuela,  136,  206 

Victory,  implies  defeat,  I20; 
confusion  of  war  with,  127-8 

Violence,  formation  of  States 
by,  10;  reaction  results  from, 
150;  aggression  and  defence 
characterized  as,  177  note; 
prevents  State  formation, 
199;  justice  through,  233 

Vital  circulation,  association 
and,  97-9;  limits  of  States 
and,  lOi ;  philosophy  of 
force  ignores,  102;  division 
of  labour  and,  192 

Vital  intensity,  health  and, 
108-9;  in  proportion  to 
number  of  associates,  202; 
conditioned  by  justice,  368 

"  Vital  interest, "  127,  129 

Voltaire,  114,  150  1 

i 
Wallace,  Alfred  Russel,  20, 
23,  25,  26,  232,  269,  270, 
271,  278,  325 
War,  cause  of  progress,  7,  11, 
13,  17,  62;  collective  homi- 
cide and,  9;  sociological 
necessity,  19;  a  state  of 
nature,  38 ;  Germany  ascribes 
all  benefits  to,  41;  waste  of, 
54;  moral  equivalent  for,  63; 
depends  on  biological  laws, 
69 ;  dramatic  character  of ,  72 ; 
due  to  intelligence,  73;  a 
pre-social  fact,  93;  nature  of, 
104;  process  of  dissociation, 
105;  national  unity  and 
war,  106;  a  social  disease, 
107;  as  means  of  procuring 
subsistence,  1 16-17,  185;  re- 
tards production,  119;  pro- 
duces insecurity,  121;  re- 
tards civilization,  123-4; 
victory  and,  127;  creative 
activity  and,  135;  produces 
civilization,  138,  140;  race 
effects  of,  141-8;  as  ultima 
ratio,  147;  pretended  anti- 
quity of,  169,  171;  follows 
civilization,  1 73 ;  prestige  of. 


Index 


417 


War —  Continued 

174;  not  end  in  itself,  175; 
defended,  175-6;  as  politi- 
cal means,  180;  inevitability 
of,  182-3;  for  wealth, 1 86;  for 
territory,  187;  for  religion, 
188;  signifies  anarchistic 
relations,  198;  prevents 
federation  of  Europe,  201; 
abolition  of  slavery  and, 
205 ;  Treitschke  on  the  State 
and,  250;  and  competitive 
system  of  civilization,  260; 
r61e  in  evolution,  280-2; 
results  in  negative  selection, 
282 ;  see  also  Collective  Homi- 
cide, Force,  Struggle 

War  of  1866,  150 

War  of  1870,  21,  41-2,  45,  107, 
122, 128, 150,  220,  222 

War,  the  Great,  120,  208,  216, 
219,  220,  225 

Ward,  Lester  F.,  11,  12,  17, 
116,  133,  157-8,  193-4,  201- 
3,  287,  324 

Wars  of  religion,  36 

Wealth,  186;  methods  of  ob- 
taining, 186-7 

Wealth,  production  of,  adapta- 
tion of  planet  to  our  needs, 
386;  prevented  by  inter- 
national anarchy,  386 

Wilkinson,  Professor  Spencer, 
250 

William  I.,  King,  125 

"Will  to  power"  philosophy, 
Carlyle  and,  27 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  246,  346 

Witchcraft,  Montaigne  and, 
xvii;     universal     belief     in, 

Woman,  in  primitive  society, 
160;  status  of,  improves  as 
r61e  of  force  declines,  263-4; 

37 


result  of  world  federation 
upon  emancipation  of,  390; 
justice  and  the  rise  of,  391 
Woolwich  Arsenal,  13 
World  community,  237 
World  federation,  obstacles  to, 
380-4;  (i)  philosophy  of 
force,  8-17,  380-3;  (2)  land 
hunger  and  desire  for  con- 
quest, 45-7,  384;  (3)  spirit 
of  jingoism,  384  note;  (4) 
special  interests,  244-6,  384 
note;  (5)  militarism,  247-51 
384;  (6)  distrust  of  inter- 
national justice,  373,  384 
note;  (7)  race  prejudice  and 
hatred,  47-50,  251-3,  384; 
(8)  inertia  and  social  fatal- 
ism, 212-22,  384;  advan- 
tages of,  384-94;  (i)  econo- 
mic, 384;  (2)  political,  387; 
(3)  in  religion,  389;  (4) 
in  education,  390;  (5)  eman- 
cipation  of   woman,   390-1; 

(6)  in  social  theory,  391-2; 

(7)  intellectual  progress, 
393;  (8)  social  reform,  393-4; 
favourable  factors,  394-6 ; 
(i)  growth  of  international 
communication,  394;  (2) 
economic,  social,  and  intellec- 
tual interdependence,  394-5; 
(3)  extension  of  mental  hori- 
zon, 395;  (4)  ethical  factors, 
395;  (5)  perfection  of  mili- 
tary organization  and  its 
instruments,  396;  (6)  econo- 
mic pressure,  396 

World  organization,  228 
World  unity,  127,  131 
Wiirtteraberg,  106,  198 

Zabern,  150,  246 
Zwingli,  207 


\ 


The  History 
of  the  Child  in 
Human  Progress 

By  George  Henry  Payne 

8°.     Many  Illustrations 


The  treatment  received  by  children  in  the 
past  was,  until  Mr.  Payne  started  on  his 
work,  left  out  of  consideration ;  children  of  the 
present  have  been  studied  and  written  about 
as  inefficiently  as  might  be  our  law,  were  no 
consideration  given  to  the  past  experience  of 
men  wherein  its  traditions  are  rooted. 

Having  established  the  status  of  the  child 
in  what  is  wrongly  called  "the  prehistoric 
period"  by  showing  its  status  among  races 
now  on  earth  but  "co-eval  with  the  neolithic 
age,"  he  shows  with  great  clearness  the  suc- 
cessive steps  which  have  been  taken  since 
the  days  of  Tyre  to  the  founding  of  child- 
welfare  societies  during  the  present  genera- 
tion. The  result  is  a  faultless  background 
for  all  literature  on  child-welfare. 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York     -::-     London 


iNEqUALlTY 
OF    THE 

Human 

Races 


By   Count  Arthur   de   Gobineau 

Author  of  "The  Renaissance" 


Edited  by  Dr.  Oscar  Levy 
Translated  by  Adrian  Collins,  M.A. 

8vo.     $2.00  net 

The  author  shows  the  philosophical 
foundations  upon  which  his  brilHant 
studies  of  the  Renaissance  are  based, 
and  provides  the  historical  student 
with  a  totally  new  standpoint  from 
which  to  view  his  subject. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

New  York     .'.       London 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD30SSbDM3 


f 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


C030SSbDM3 


